IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> (UDP Usage Guidelines) to Best Current Practice

Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jri@google.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 7790D12D78D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Wk3gBkSJwYk1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 A8EB312D783 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c72so10203274ywb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q+NksMW/poUNneLg4oWmK7/CiygAlnN+R1bukcy5P0A=; b=LnkUkE0fTmbove/3t7Wmnb82wpkG4A2ZP/KI1OlR0JwMetjyv2qEIPi1i4xW7ZUhHi 0rEeLG19MLWsgCqVhRtIrOkW8meSeNofSoy5PK9QXvsD9omvh38Ha/aNd33ydts43bZi J+AOBcYzvtDsrF/tHMFeNJ9mhVtbjNp7OfJ6fiSt6gcj+9Hv93ZR8y75HZXQi6mFSPK1 fYrDqBW1P1/bsmg8diftP5FC/J9p82ZsFYFkHdR1tlyhuVG3YuTx+JgG4a702xIF2cnM EBhW7akPG99sWbzvXhJj+nKZwjRNx4De1Of5s4Bjat1tOG6iwVCNH2A093WnCeZAcY1E yZOA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q+NksMW/poUNneLg4oWmK7/CiygAlnN+R1bukcy5P0A=; b=TSSUeZ/r6lLFmQozKvlG+3zdZ6pFXl3IhAipHPLiGt+VzxKmPzXV65xeemqw7qSw6I RhhdTpGDm7kLO1zXw8R+4dJ7lCjDL7XHFEQ9APpko7BYRhr4vRsUeknQ3fY75jzfutM+ kUVQWi/Dpo2qqpWQxfX1kC3jlnfwop9Ol24Ad4SHs3bkQlB4dqGu/rQdpRyZROgcMZj1 YtdgOvcJIRD6OAs/Hr4uehiYweP3m3MurNVs7j9SwXF4F4xkD90/KJs+CZR1UEaOZwyw WMB0i5myMy9I0VuMtDfCe+PVM1NXRX7mhP6bLeYXEW2UweX6PweWYtuCiD0kMnGWhKZO P7UA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ4fM9jX1f3GAqfpjC5VV14IbDBMdHA7bTXpHR51aFc9+UTIRv8Va9pvommzRdbtffH8/KWKsiJ4naCDygD
X-Received: by 10.37.34.84 with SMTP id i81mr1640990ybi.156.1465365559701; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.221.193 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34abJNgPM6w-U9=AwNs-wu9LeoE9uezni-c7scbxEHtdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160518001706.24865.86238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <035AC810-E5E4-45E2-A4F8-05C9F31A7F3D@trammell.ch> <CALx6S34abJNgPM6w-U9=AwNs-wu9LeoE9uezni-c7scbxEHtdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:59:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGD1bZaAQ5yDQpiXuDYER47SzkcbXux=5CA+eQhxE_PL3e+h7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Spud] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> (UDP Usage Guidelines) to Best Current Practice
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c113a0a771ee0534be01e4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rHoQmKv6vRd9HRfP_3odY5uOMPE>
Cc: tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, spud <spud@ietf.org>, quic@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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 05:59:23 -0000

Just adding my 2c if this still isn't too late: I agree with Brian that the
wording in the draft seems limiting. His suggested wording does make things
better, but there still is the contradiction that Tom pointed out:

I would agree, this paragraph also seems a little self
> contradictory.There is an acknowledgment that "middleboxes that only
> support TCP and UDP are not rare", but then the next sentence
> recommends the use of several other protocols besides UDP and TCP. If
> I put these two together, the only congested controlled protocol that
> is recommended and expected to work on the Internet is TCP.


This caught my attention as well. As it stands, the recommendation in this
paragraph is very unclear.

What exactly is the goal here? If it is to ensure that the recommendations
allow for deployable protocols, then UDP-based ones must be allowed.
Otherwise, the recommendation seems to be to only use TCP. I don't think
that was the intent... but then what is the intent in this paragraph?

- jana

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email