Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt]

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mon, 29 October 2018 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 D4C4712F1A6; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 CvJ0Dj1i4b6T; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803:203:178:142:146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0A71286D9; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f182.google.com (mail-oi1-f182.google.com [209.85.167.182]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E934278593; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:02:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f182.google.com with SMTP id k64-v6so5748443oia.13; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKHwoef2yTL10LA7RWzbk2OxTJojKMkA7HKsVc7HuFrL5DnH4wm 8/ob+PBAN09L8NKBuVgNHtp/MjS7/MPkB39lSUI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dtDgApD09BCQHAabAPyVXQjg8lcmaEB6cSAbcPLi21hzAjBvtD3SpIlavXthqbftKKFerTaufbxReSAPUgkS0=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4390:: with SMTP id u16-v6mr7728264oiv.186.1540782170678; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <26ed385e2f00a41e717a9d4b4043f9b9.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <26ed385e2f00a41e717a9d4b4043f9b9.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:02:38 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yf9bQbCY0iM4gkJbXhO-m=z2U1Vmp39ThkHjk-5xXMoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yf9bQbCY0iM4gkJbXhO-m=z2U1Vmp39ThkHjk-5xXMoMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: carlesgo@entel.upc.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, lwip@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/3cpr-AoEXpMO4mJ-G2wR6X33RYA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.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: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 03:02:58 -0000

Hello,

I've read the draft and I think the draft looks fine and mostly ready.
I have some comments below..

1: Section 4.2.4:
  "In that case, RTO algorithm tuning may be considered, although
careful assessment of possible drawbacks is recommended"

-> It might be better if we refer draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider here
although it is not very certain the draft will be published at this
moment? It seems to me the motivation of the doc fits the situation
like this.

2: Section 4.3.1:
   "These algorithms work efficiently for window size of at least 5 MSS"

-> Just curious why this is 5? Is it because the use of delayed ack is presumed?
     A receiver may have a chance to send an ack for segment 1 before
segment 3 arrives.

3: Section 5.3
    CCN -> CNN?

   "This overhead could be reduced by TCP Fast Open (TFO)"

-> Yes, but the use of TLS is not mandatory in this draft. If an
implementation utilizes TFO, we might want to mention about app level
idempotency here.

   "TCP keep-alive messages are not very useful to..."

-> We don't need to discuss reducing the interval of keep-alive here?

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:47 PM Carles Gomez Montenegro
<carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear LWIG and TCPM WGs,
>
> As you can see below, we have updated the "TCP Usage Guidance in the
> Internet of Things (IoT)" draft.
>
> This revision intends to address previously pending TODOs, as well as
> comments from the LWIG session in Montreal.
>
> As you may recall, we are getting ready for requesting a WGLC. Your
> comments will be most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carles (on behalf of all authors)
>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: [Lwip] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt
> From:    internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Date:    Tue, October 9, 2018 7:30 am
> To:      i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc:      lwip@ietf.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG
> of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : TCP Usage Guidance in the Internet of Things (IoT)
>         Authors         : Carles Gomez
>                           Jon Crowcroft
>                           Michael Scharf
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04.txt
>         Pages           : 25
>         Date            : 2018-10-08
>
> Abstract:
>    This document provides guidance on how to implement and use the
>    Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in Constrained-Node Networks
>    (CNNs), which are a characterstic of the Internet of Things (IoT).
>    Such environments require a lightweight TCP implementation and may
>    not make use of optional functionality.  This document explains a
>    number of known and deployed techniques to simplify a TCP stack as
>    well as corresponding tradeoffs.  The objective is to help embedded
>    developers with decisions on which TCP features to use.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04
>
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm