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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 12:20 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 18D9F12D53D; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:20:44 -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 HnbyGG9bpAcW; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:20:40 -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 4042512D1EA; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n184so179016203wmn.1; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 05:20:40 -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=oGG8Vy1xecl2gchf3lAjRbHRbPZhJAaQ46e/iQXpI1U=; b=BAOXoR4C6tdHNAcYYVia75xsrQktD3J7v/zB6U9u07c8kTaF4zU65J7VSTGp6Baqrf Vqx3ipRU1LTE7PsZNCqWltx1lTjN6W91TVAxoWNduAVCuqMaTaYt5JwdC2zcjnHIxJjp /MrK31QYRsaByA2IjtqmqIBWsFA471lv3ORJqGl3Bjn4ikv/yAePMhfAnNmX3SLPYOcF OuOZt6OJGY+8qBT9Tomke0oYQOx5uNle10n6qUYuajgJQvzl76A6jPgYCZJaaMX+zhVB 4EnucmTtoA8W0BBW3EU1PFm7PSbME0sX8PgnbuuPnn0lW/i/5rvRuTVdpNMbPBfHmKjx zK5g==
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=oGG8Vy1xecl2gchf3lAjRbHRbPZhJAaQ46e/iQXpI1U=; b=C1zThgmRWvQlfVHetOxzqFe1nmMT8r2Tkmcpodz/w1Al1zpbJCcITvwqdp9hxcjN9a 4tfHVc6jzSrFQhM7lvbFWLrNnzpT4xfXTXICbfFHLnEtA2wJkQT6FdLjooVYA35kles0 wQH38Nmyp9vbBPdop71Cb1obSzmIHEioJbe0EhQMY6S6PkBj46TSOPILfKiUhMA3bJ4e YPuCw9+hJ193PDM1FQOBAmucfMFu3oDgtI2l5x+N9z+nKXVF1KA01DZZQzCZeYxbIpDv UXGN7RY7C4HE5SGEAZRAjwcp7bNv912xTRr6OKPEgpMt3S8yCuAWRPyCpLlHrrxMMaj0 GdOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIylU9gDeh0vL6IWHDTotNK8WbHnLnS3oLpCVJLeo6UDgQdNC+ZN2vj1a6tNJ+fyrLuraLL6xNQhjioNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.211.142 with SMTP id k136mr7777814wmg.29.1465388438767; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 05:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.234.13 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZaAQ5yDQpiXuDYER47SzkcbXux=5CA+eQhxE_PL3e+h7w@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> <CAGD1bZaAQ5yDQpiXuDYER47SzkcbXux=5CA+eQhxE_PL3e+h7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:20:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGR_CJkV3NDD8-7V+jNgNQKobsUgN2+nGUwgYHnPNiT27A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [tsvwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13.txt> (UDP Usage Guidelines) to Best Current Practice
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Jim Roskind <JimRoskind@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147136a59d17a0534c355b4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/riLrlqqwt7lw1mkss-QbeqE08Z4>
Cc: tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, "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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:20:44 -0000

On Sunday, June 5, 2016, Jim Roskind <JimRoskind@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','JimRoskind@gmail.com');>> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:11 AM, 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 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.
>>
>
> +1   TCP (implemented in kernel space) can't possibly evolve congestion
> avoidance as fast as the Internet has changed, or will change (example:
> good handling of middle boxes that use "policers" rather than some flavor
> of buffer-size based packet-drop).
> The rationale for using UDP for QUIC was indeed that a new IP number would
> never make it through the Internet (other protocol deployment attempts have
> commonly verified this).  It turns out that even UDP is partially blocked
> (as recently as 2011) by paths to 5-7% of all chrome clients, which lead to
> the "automated fallback" elements of QUIC,
>
>
I think this changes with ipv6, no?  Google sees over 26% ipv6 in the usa
and growing quickly

http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

And there is evidence that middle boxes go away in ipv6. .... So perhaps
the world is changing and your assuptions do not hold



>
>
Hopefully the benefits that QUIC is bringing to the Internet will not be
> outlawed (precluded by such commentary).
>
> Jim
>
>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> > 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> 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 mailing lists by 2016-05-31. Exceptionally, comments
>> may be
>> >> sent to iesg@ietf.org 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Spud mailing list
>> > Spud@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> QUIC mailing list
>> QUIC@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic
>>
>
>