Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> (UDP Usage Guidelines) to Best Current Practice
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 03 June 2016 15:15 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C6012D555; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLxetBeWhNaA; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD98C12D1C7; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n184so706673wmn.1; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=DsKBy/rkNOl9/IhJfvmjz+gnhN/+rL8EgdGzi4TOAMk=; b=KVW6TXCpd1y399d/T9rxXm6De6xNJNi/Oq489yzicEwLpEuN+OKGikRAznK5xoDfot +5R/P6TaFB2hBiHvQA7AA8q7yOAeB3EA9BPIB7S+Bx3X3ItYGbAdZ09QGap68lBQi6Ua sO9MaFr5ob1NJgUbRtEapV1CHuS1+69O1BEEmJlY2529N2tFfFAmpJWyJKgz32YSt+/h N/so35JmfmAMOQC7uHDnp3JEjXzsBKYjCJbiaR7Fsy0xPg66rKuqosMESQ54Xw9oCBfK EMHGH3Lgumlv0Zk+yvBQKb5bzUMQzbxVoC2bDCMO0xu7gHUor5M6jcFMP/vDH3TPPZY2 cpwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=DsKBy/rkNOl9/IhJfvmjz+gnhN/+rL8EgdGzi4TOAMk=; b=Cv+edS36S4gpZPw8chODlSgH+3yGUczftFdFkerpnIjkRJJKrsBfm6Rasvzn5SgmA8 ddCVghYoKtBdvA2mNuqUOHDZNT0ybBMZWzAvJ22bZGIcV/AylZlwxmcx5JNd/WrrBtKK QvxLpJtXbNO+bQAIO6N5BGTXPiG5aB7/anyCYmeDM1uRGWt6tohvy/YxU2buxSQEs+4F W3LltnRoVHP/oM0wXSZRptmnfZmJCHUxq/eU73ZdCNsndgQ7q5TWAvO8A7nzaLvC9EY2 wYbLUWbdt8F6bWx61GLI0UZpkFLF7RK0S8sRqhnWegcadHgZxOHc5JC0Jw3bjoxvygIW cEGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJWQdk86VlXnmn9xr484fMCXwyRkjIDcElDM/Ij+W9NYlJM7+chIfUdjEwL4833ZiRrKUZRunGvYW10mQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.25.129 with SMTP id 123mr84041wmz.10.1464966933220; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.234.13 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <035AC810-E5E4-45E2-A4F8-05C9F31A7F3D@trammell.ch>
References: <20160518001706.24865.86238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <035AC810-E5E4-45E2-A4F8-05C9F31A7F3D@trammell.ch>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:15:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGROkQb76zHLb91WtJPUom+MsktYYDSbWc1N=oWdU6DpQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> (UDP Usage Guidelines) to Best Current Practice
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114d3ceea9a1010534613197"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SXSNCLB73fHUhMwkr7Grzsr6iM8>
Cc: tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, spud <spud@ietf.org>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:15:40 -0000
On Thursday, June 2, 2016, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: > Greetings, all, > > Apologies for the late last call comment; I have only one, relatively > minor. I hope it's still useful. > > I understand that Section 3 was written to encourage application > developers not to roll their own transports ("trust us when we say this is > hard, this document is a list of reasons why") but as written it would seem > to discourage transport innovation atop UDP (e.g. QUIC, the RTCWEB data > channel, anything-over-PLUS), which I very much hope was not the intent. > The problematic recommendation is in the second paragraph: > > These mechanisms are difficult to implement correctly. For most > applications, the use of one of the existing IETF transport protocols > is the simplest method of acquiring the required mechanisms. Doing > so also avoids issues that protocols using a new IP protocol number > face when being deployed over the Internet, where middleboxes that > only support TCP and UDP are not rare. Consequently, the RECOMMENDED > alternative to the UDP usage described in the remainder of this > section is the use of an IETF transport protocol such as TCP > [RFC0793], Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and > SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) [RFC3758], or Datagram > Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] with its different > congestion control types [RFC4341][RFC4342][RFC5622]. > > First, this paragraph ignores potential deployment issues with any of > these other than TCP, which risks seeming out of touch, but this is a minor > point and probably not worth a late edit. Second, I'm concerned this > recommendation could be taken as broader than intended, against the > definition of any new transport protocol encapsulated within UDP that > performs substantially the same function as the listed protocols. > > I think this can be made clearer by simply adding to the list of examples: > > NEW: > > These mechanisms are difficult to implement correctly. For most > applications, the use of one of the existing IETF transport protocols > is the simplest method of acquiring the required mechanisms. Doing > so also avoids issues that protocols using a new IP protocol number > face when being deployed over the Internet, where middleboxes that > only support TCP and UDP are not rare. Consequently, the RECOMMENDED > alternative to the UDP usage described in the remainder of this > section is the use of an IETF transport protocol such as TCP > [RFC0793], Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and > SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) [RFC3758], or Datagram > Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] with its different > congestion control types [RFC4341][RFC4342][RFC5622], or transport > protocols specified by the IETF in the future. > > and removing the examples from the summary in section 7: > > OLD: > > | SHOULD use a full-featured transport (TCP, SCTP, DCCP) | | > > NEW: > > | SHOULD use a full-featured transport | | > > Thanks, cheers, > > Brian > > > > On 18 May 2016, at 02:17, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG > > (tsvwg) to consider the following document: > > - 'UDP Usage Guidelines' > > <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> as Best Current Practice > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > ietf@ietf.org <javascript:;> mailing lists by 2016-05-31. > Exceptionally, comments may be > > sent to iesg@ietf.org <javascript:;> instead. In either case, please > retain the > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > Abstract > > > > > > The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a minimal message-passing > > transport that has no inherent congestion control mechanisms. This > > document provides guidelines on the use of UDP for the designers of > > applications, tunnels and other protocols that use UDP. Congestion > > control guidelines are a primary focus, but the document also > > provides guidance on other topics, including message sizes, > > reliability, checksums, middlebox traversal, the use of ECN, DSCPs, > > and ports. > > > > Because congestion control is critical to the stable operation of the > > Internet, applications and other protocols that choose to use UDP as > > an Internet transport must employ mechanisms to prevent congestion > > collapse and to establish some degree of fairness with concurrent > > traffic. They may also need to implement additional mechanisms, > > depending on how they use UDP. > > > > Some guidance is also applicable to the design of other protocols > > (e.g., protocols layered directly on IP or via IP-based tunnels), > > especially when these protocols do not themselves provide congestion > > control. > > > > This document obsoletes RFC5405 and adds guidelines for multicast UDP > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ballot/ > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > I disagree. The text as-is is best and represents a prudent period of review in the WG. As suggested many times to both spud and quic, extending udp is not recommended. We have multiple L4 transport protocols for a reason, you should innovative in that space without UDP. CB
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.tx… Mark Allman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.tx… Brian Trammell
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405b… Ca By
- Re: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405b… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Spud] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bi… Tom Herbert
- Re: [QUIC] [Spud] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rf… Jim Roskind
- Re: [Spud] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bi… Jana Iyengar
- [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-1… Ca By