Re: [tcpm] Ready for WGLC? (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.txt)

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Tue, 27 April 2021 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 B423A3A0B9E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 wFpUvCy2aoh1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 117B33A0BC1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A4225A1F; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1619533222; bh=r3+bYxO0pkA90+UnKIOrUBmdTxwe1tjRPH39CTtZUGE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XbEUoFnV13Sc3bSIO9498nFBMvRAMb80r/lWc102jwEnWz2mSiPYrpbDMlzn66FVD HsyLdqYVzA7UXfxMIFwCH5z+BNSZskq1kp3ggyU0eSXkvarMCRmutcCQVRCJbAo8QZ Vn7JIla/qc0E4Dy+Cm8EmWAmlOH/poWO9gdT7CLE=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oHSfC0fAbwRe; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:20 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:20:20 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Ready for WGLC? (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHXNqABhoTnud0RjUi9I+y6WyOlO6rIZJ2g
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:20:20 +0000
Message-ID: <a95ebf50a8484780a7469662b19a0f54@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <161900369811.32481.884979008893654014@ietfa.amsl.com> <188CB4A3-C25C-4E54-A082-9E8998ACDA82@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <188CB4A3-C25C-4E54-A082-9E8998ACDA82@eggert.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/3Sm4wYQzf_Azakp36sdQY_3r0oM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Ready for WGLC? (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.txt)
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:20:29 -0000

Hi Lars, all,

I have read -01, which looks pretty good to me.

Yet, I wonder about one editorial aspect:

In the current version, the abstract, introduction and some later non-normative sections are by and large copied from RFC 8312. While that is perfectly reasonable for a -bis document, I believe the document could be a bit more explicit regarding the new status as PS, even if this would imply some editorial changes as compared to RFC 8312.

As of today, 8312bis is probably one of the most important and most widely deployed TCP standards. But the text is not necessarily written that way, given its origins.

Here are some examples of what comes into my mind:

1/ Abstract:

"CUBIC is an extension to the traditional TCP standards. It differs from the traditional TCP standards only in the congestion control algorithm on the sender side."

IMHO one could also start here with something much more explicit along the lines of "CUBIC is a standard TCP congestion control algorithm [...]".

Personally, I don't like the term "traditional standards" in this context. In fact, after 8312bis will be published as PS, CUBIC may actually become part of what one could consider as "traditional standards". Maybe it would be better to avoid that term altogether? At least, I believe it could be avoided by rewording the abstract.

2/ Introduction: 

The key sentence "It is therefore to be regarded as the current standard for TCP congestion control" comes at the end after a lot of text on the historical background.

An alternative would be to start in the introduction with what CUBIC is as according to this document and why CUBIC is relevant. Obviously, the historical context _is_ important and must be explained in the document. But I am less sure whether the history needs to be at the beginning of the introduction. At least newcomers to congestion control may more care about the content of this Proposed Standard and less about research that resulted in RFC 8312.

3/ Section 5.4:

"CUBIC has been extensively studied by using both NS-2 simulation and testbed experiments, covering a wide range of network environments. More information can be found in [HKLRX06]. Additionally, there is decade-long deployment experience with CUBIC on the Internet."

This is another example where the most important message as of 2021 comes somewhere at the end. Given the experience with CUBIC, one could just start with the last sentence "There is decade-long deployment experience..." and then state something along the lines of "The original CUBIC design has been studied extensively by using both NS-2 simulation and testbed experiments...". Just as a thought.

Probably the existing text in -01 also works in all these cases and this is just about editorial style. But I think we could at least discuss whether some alternative wordings would make sense given the new PS status, in particular for newcomers who may not have read RFC 8312 and don't know its history (and probably never have to once this PS is published).

My 2 cents

Michael (with no hat)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:18 PM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] Ready for WGLC? (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-
> 01.txt)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this revision rolls in all the changes the authors wanted to make to CUBIC. In
> other words, we believe this could be ready for a WGLC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
> 
> On 2021-4-21, at 14:14, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG
> of the IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks
> >        Authors         : Lisong Xu
> >                          Sangtae Ha
> >                          Injong Rhee
> >                          Vidhi Goel
> >                          Lars Eggert
> > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.txt
> > 	Pages           : 28
> > 	Date            : 2021-04-21
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   CUBIC is an extension to the traditional TCP standards.  It differs
> >   from the traditional TCP standards only in the congestion control
> >   algorithm on the sender side.  In particular, it uses a cubic
> >   function instead of the linear window increase function of the
> >   traditional TCP standards to improve scalability and stability under
> >   fast and long-distance networks.  CUBIC has been adopted as the
> >   default TCP congestion control algorithm by the Linux, Windows, and
> >   Apple stacks.
> >
> >   This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include
> >   algorithmic improvements based on these implementations and recent
> >   academic work.  Based on the extensive deployment experience with
> >   CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track,
> >   obsoleting [RFC8312].
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis/
> >
> > There is also an HTML version available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.html
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm