Re: [nwcrg] What I SHOULD have said about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport

Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Fri, 22 November 2019 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
X-Original-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6C9120836 for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wVdMJBLOrcDm for <nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.cnes.fr (mx2.cnes.fr [194.199.174.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957E412012A for <nwcrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:32:00 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.69,228,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="31036958"
X-IPAS-Result: A2F1AABeR9dd/wIBeApkGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF+gRyBXROBMQqEIJEUgwyFFIp/iAMICQEBAQEBAQEBASABDAoBAYRAAheCNjgTAhABAQEEAQEBAQEFAgEBAgKFVEwMhicCAQMBASEKQRsCAQgNFRkEAwICAiULFBECBAESCIMbgXmBDa4FgTIaBYQuQYU1gTaBZYoLgj+BEUaCHi4+gmIBAQIBAYFfFR+CWjKCCiIEkBKFSIdYkH4HgTxygjeEY45RdYI8iyEDi0OETol6iDiTOyqBezMaJ0yCbAlHEYZoFxUYhGGDVoU/dJA2gQ8BAQ
X-URL-LookUp-ScanningError: 1
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: 'Emmanuel Lochin' <emmanuel.lochin@isae-supaero.fr>, "nwcrg@irtf.org" <nwcrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nwcrg] What I SHOULD have said about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport
Thread-Index: AQHVoNPPomPazUfke0uV/5WSIwFk9qeWd9IA
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:30:57 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:31:56 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED05318@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
References: <CAKKJt-fjnujxjrPMqo0CEcLOBHi=7kdBXU7TvmP6gHyOXpQhYQ@mail.gmail.com> <c74548b9-6dad-c3d3-dfcd-5db975b13592@isae-supaero.fr>
In-Reply-To: <c74548b9-6dad-c3d3-dfcd-5db975b13592@isae-supaero.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-25058.004
x-tm-as-result: No--32.486400-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED05318TWMBXP03cnesnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nwcrg/FpefMXTkjUvLmPtM3LvPHYImOP8>
Subject: Re: [nwcrg] What I SHOULD have said about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport
X-BeenThere: nwcrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list <nwcrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nwcrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nwcrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:32:04 -0000

Thanks a lot for your interest of the document and for your useful comment.
We will surely consider it in the updated version of the document - stay tuned !

Cheers,

Nico

De : nwcrg <nwcrg-bounces@irtf.org> De la part de Emmanuel Lochin
Envoyé : vendredi 22 novembre 2019 02:26
À : nwcrg@irtf.org
Objet : Re: [nwcrg] What I SHOULD have said about https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuhn-coding-congestion-transport

Le 21/11/2019 à 10:08, Spencer Dawkins at IETF a écrit :

During Nicholas's presentation this afternoon, I pointed out that it might be good to consider whether "repair equals loss" was the right model for sender congestion control responses because we we had considered ECN as equal to loss for many years, but (FINALLY) redefined the ECT(1) bit to allow other responses. It might be useful to point the discussion of this draft in the same direction - assume the use of scalable congestion control and ECT(1) signaling.

I was talking to Gorry Fairhurst afterwards, and Gorry told me what I SHOULD have said, was that the sender should perform whatever its response to congestion would be - if it's an old-style sender, treat recovery as loss, but if it supports scalable congestion control (L4S is one example), it doesn't have to treat recovery as loss - it just needs to do something appropriate.


Fully agree, we just signal the recovery, the treatment depends on the CC policy.

EL


Again, I hope that's useful, and I appreciate this work a lot, because people do need it.

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. cc: Gorry, in case I got that wrong.



_______________________________________________

nwcrg mailing list

nwcrg@irtf.org<mailto:nwcrg@irtf.org>

https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg



--

Emmanuel LOCHIN

Professeur ISAE

ISAE SUPAERO - Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace

10 avenue Edouard Belin - BP 54032 - 31055 TOULOUSE CEDEX 4 FRANCE -

http://www.isae-supaero.fr

Tel +33 5 61 33 84 85 - Fax (+33) 5 61 33 83 45

Web : http://personnel.isae.fr/emmanuel-lochin/