[sbm] Re: Draft-cheshire-sbm-02 submitted
Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 20 March 2025 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: sbm@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: sbm@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D1BF9FFC7; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ifi.uio.no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLZJIY0TQYjg; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out04.uio.no (mail-out04.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB975F9FF92; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ifi.uio.no; s=key2309; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7NUaivinCsU8f6BOBPEjQDULlppqGEHLjd93qfqQEsI=; b=yuqZkV1oPMw0RB7+Vzt5jGz7M5 2+kqJD6S2m5hA7i/VMqe2r6q309XEEekH3zTtBZ5DyYmycN6+4srnLeHiiTCe1P64Wy4qSJSDjFq8 p1IR2Nuikwgyq6tVlwSQCy0Svr4Cjm5qIF674xsHOP4ZvzBUNCPF4EzxdqU3h3ilXC1A47WfdCoBG lgsRHSy3kQ766MLbv9vAoR/A/YrrJlDBeHoPiuEctFWib2euMkcpUvFaekD0joRPeqAVS/Ab0nBDK nGsh22GSWrnxoEmU/1wllaG6pfOlg5Hhs5rvRqCYZiTQLkX+w/mYulopq7cZdPVrXs5eLtUFDRIIG qRZx7qVA==;
Received: from mail-mx12.uio.no ([129.240.10.84]) by mail-out04.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1tvEyt-007uqF-18; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:26:39 +0100
Received: from [129.240.136.194] (helo=smtpclient.apple) by mail-mx12.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1tvEys-00000000H2e-3ZXf; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:26:39 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <5D150CA5-2D10-4CD0-A57C-7E5B10E66FAA@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:26:25 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0E05D2EE-E73A-40B7-AE21-03FA3B1B12FC@ifi.uio.no>
References: <5D150CA5-2D10-4CD0-A57C-7E5B10E66FAA@apple.com>
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.400.131.1.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx12.uio.no: 129.240.136.194 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.136.194; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=smtpclient.apple;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, RDNS_NONE=0.001,UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5)
X-UiO-Scanned: B161AD165AF46B8609C975A9FF42B998860D6607
Message-ID-Hash: U37SO7LEZ7RP4TVYQYQ4HKNDEN3YAKML
X-Message-ID-Hash: U37SO7LEZ7RP4TVYQYQ4HKNDEN3YAKML
X-MailFrom: michawe@ifi.uio.no
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: sbm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [sbm] Re: Draft-cheshire-sbm-02 submitted
List-Id: Source Buffer Management <sbm.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sbm/59BNiGXGPT8JD17fL74B8JU8Qig>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sbm>
List-Help: <mailto:sbm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:sbm-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sbm@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sbm-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sbm-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Stuart! Thanks for referencing the Transport Services API (RFC 9622) now; however, I would say that the paragraph that you added in section 6 to refer to it mis-represents this mechanism. The quote about the “Sent events” is correct, but the consequences of this knowledge are much richer than the paragraph indicates: this does give applications complete control over the amount of buffering they create. As written in Section 6, TCP_REPLENISH_TIME has the transport protocol “compute its best estimate of when the expected time-to-exhaustion falls below this threshold” (and the application would be notified when falling below the threshold). Instead, the Sent events in a Transport Services System, as defined in RFC 9622, hand such decisions (estimation) entirely to the application. E.g., if an application wants to ensure that there will never be more than one message in the queue below, it can issue a send call and only issue the next such call when “Sent” has fired. X messages? Just increase a counter up to X whenever sending, stopping to transmission when reaching X; decrease that counter when “Sent” has fired. X bytes? Same logic with bytes. Time? The application needs to compute an estimate. You get the idea. This is slightly heavier for the application in that it processes more events than in the TCP_REPLENISH_TIME model, and if estimating time is the goal, it may also have the downside that less of the relevant data is available to the application. On the plus side, it's simpler for the system below. Anyway, both approaches give the application full control - they are just different ways of doing this. Cheers, Michael > On 16 Mar 2025, at 08:35, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Thanks all for the comments on draft-cheshire-sbm-01. I updated the draft and submitted draft-cheshire-sbm-02 today. > > Stuart Cheshire > > _______________________________________________ > sbm mailing list -- sbm@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to sbm-leave@ietf.org
- [sbm] Draft-cheshire-sbm-02 submitted Stuart Cheshire
- [sbm] Re: Draft-cheshire-sbm-02 submitted Michael Welzl
- [sbm] Re: Draft-cheshire-sbm-02 submitted Sebastian Moeller