Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 26 June 2020 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6D63A0835; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 YHFjm8XPn5Qr; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 E8C293A083C; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; 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=TsRxkdNsS3J7YBDrJJ2niN3wY6WsHI5GNyry+gWZWEg=; b=ALL/YinZRY9Zs72C9wETbGIHe 467aE+7f4OuQSe1M2AVcXURRsb8Tw7/5QGP65S0KE91HdfMYRPdcihh4GCon4i9qC58B70saRJAPf 9VYYFJWUrqLKkYSlkA2LeYdy7r0D+TjjD/CxAkqGwJiVU5UnBWCuAtXgjBBWhusy0mRFOv+H8TLc5 R7/jpLhbd3u903uZmOJ4Ksikqabv3KtqDBIC2ANCXPOYwjbV3LcY++y2nkXyAb1w6QoJlrmerrpGP h9TuVNNR60EOjKxaCSboYs3KwVQR5eG0TB41XGz6ec3eIRlXGGUoYwACSdULtKTpxYRz37VJx8nW7 dvDOPBZNQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:56668 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1joptB-00025a-B8; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:03:41 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=c8s9zsHQ_-=-e__2by8EQUqr6SEzV1kQsFO12fXpS7XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:03:36 -0700
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7DEC903-ED99-4958-9702-96DEA544AB36@strayalpha.com>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2DC2102A@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2DC42F0C@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <0571E11B-0983-4E56-A044-9F6A8F9F94B8@strayalpha.com> <CAK6E8=c8s9zsHQ_-=-e__2by8EQUqr6SEzV1kQsFO12fXpS7XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/0hBRxyrDe9w5n9S939t-Y7pMrAs>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:03:54 -0000

Yi, Yuchung,

The text was introduced in the draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-05 version in Sept 2018.

It relates to the way in which 2140 would handle the effect of idle connections and how that information becomes invalid over time as long as the connection is idle.

I.e., the idea is that 2140 could help TFP avoid bursting into the net more aggressively rather than backing down, as discussed in Sec 7.2 of RFC 7413. 

If our interpretation or the text would benefit from revision, please suggest alternate text.

Joe

> On Jun 25, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On
> "Because this is similar to the case
>   when a connection becomes idle, mechanisms that address idle TCP
>   connections (e.g., [RFC7661]) could also be applied to TCB cache
>   management, especially when TCP Fast Open is used [RFC7413]"
> 
> Why do TFO-started idle connections benefit this particularly?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:40 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m guessing the views of the authors is gratuitous, but to at least be explicit:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>>> On Jun 12, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I haven't seen any reply so far. Lack of _any_ feedback is not a particularly good sign.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, no feedback implies that the document is ready to move forward. However, even in that case explicit support for publication  would be _really_ useful. A simple "+1" could be enough...
>>> 
>>> I'll extend the WGLC by one week until June 21 to give the community some additional time to comment.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:06 PM
>>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> The document "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (draft-ietf-tcpm-
>>>> 2140bis) is out there for a quite some time already. Given that there has
>>>> been a bit less activity on the list after the interim, let's use this opportunity
>>>> to finish one of our milestones...
>>>> 
>>>> This e-mail starts a WGLG for the document draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis. The
>>>> WGLC will run until ***June 14***.
>>>> 
>>>> The intended status is an informational RFC. The current version of the
>>>> document can be found at:
>>>> 
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-05
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or
>>>> suggestions. TCPM needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to
>>>> move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Michael, on behalf of the TCPM chairs
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm