[Spud] SPUD/PLUS and ECN feedback

Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85CEA12D84B for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 70ZvZhLE11nJ for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6ADC12D5A3 for <spud@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::68ac:f071:19ff:3455]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([fe80::3c39:d305:d721:f00a%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:27:31 -0400
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SPUD/PLUS and ECN feedback
Thread-Index: AdHiyqkBYFddUog0QIqMi5f5CIF8Iw==
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:27:29 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98310320EC@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.196.10]
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98310320ECwtlexchp2sandvi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/xGzoZ5uhgZhGBVqRGvvmzV7TRsc>
Subject: [Spud] SPUD/PLUS and ECN feedback
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:27:34 -0000

Neither draft-trammell-spud-req-04 nor draft-kuehlewind-spud-use-cases-01 discuss conveying ECE/CWR signals in the SPUD/PLUS layer.

I'm referring to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3168#section-6.1 for how TCP works.

Was this intentionally omitted from the requirements, leaving it to the transport layer?
Even though the transport layer is responsible for controlling its transmit window, the ECN feedback should be used by every transport protocol, so placing the info in the SPUD/PLUS layer could be appropriate.

(Also I wonder if the network might use this to identify ECN cheaters.)

-Dave