[tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 30 November 2020 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.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 8801E3A0FCA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 EvsOkL8llVBS for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BB6A3A0FBB for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id q5so11701395qkc.12 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=z8yQ6nVGonb6lZybt/hO/u7botVkOhF4rA2S7eG582o=; b=sSMgBVTYHxPa3SCFiV/6ZIYbwNZwFz/NLOu69mfAju5kAr8m/2AnRnAaoddQouphnZ zRy25bj0qbbSIjBvKK50EpWAoqMyuniDG0gYEluh+FI0SdN7rDyMFqSczvuJLFfWGKgX 9cbM/Uy8tMkKmlWPZjB8InDpPaak4Ps0DUqo+Wuev/4JMcy45ey1RUjaB2Cv7Gjqas/q VpQU2xZn3c085WM3qagCMgV2gdpGx9M3tdbOuzVTkQPoP/h1qhwfGSB5kX82tUBTCH8C sl9DiAkLquGRToweHjsF1w5/HEHlsddj6edHW2zd1Zi/g42J5PpMZKnpfSzZ27aP8IYk kfgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=z8yQ6nVGonb6lZybt/hO/u7botVkOhF4rA2S7eG582o=; b=Ia+RkzwgqdbBdE+x8sNbagXhiBpEFRYyvvTmd30zq6i2KkHW4tqAce/9ZCUL/7CID3 KAksjaTK6JHq8vIeJeZ2ApxMk2RE+7FRXfeiWkDl/uElcM4cmSRMnkQVxD0VmAzUEOQl Sy8ORonBnMPUlGC2obn1DpcGOgRAJ7gOubZT6820RucMpXUarizctAWkY6YIcY/GqLta j9Ae3id7k6GLFALeBv+IfPl1qfAp1xNhKemd4lN6OWLIJie7/xe+kVEpnxFwRqJilvOt lxVcrLMyYBuNrbkk7gx+tQsd2A8cJ+ymTEE9FiN1oZsX9o8sKKcoGgXLp/ERp5HhMBWY ubew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LK4WmrG4rd8gX8h9ZtjPlKYlIOC+3Djna8HP9Enh8qw1UxnIr brYyc8Xf6ALellQN0cee1voaMElJ13+jxkxYUGlgkGXn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDSlIQdX2hyGzsAABIfWd35J6GYneSY8kF5h1PSv60f0TM082Xl1UrFBNAqQoQSEFRE/+GvRgiaD3FXgvPPRk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:11a4:: with SMTP id c4mr24402672qkk.8.1606759959033; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH56bmCkmtvqTRaEC-AFd-_W1nWeE0JE9SMt=w8E5JoHvvnVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmCkmtvqTRaEC-AFd-_W1nWeE0JE9SMt=w8E5JoHvvnVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAK044T7POu9YCU_=Gf5St-A5s8bnv0fhCuWASqD6_tz6_Hdvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098fa1605b556f45e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/3egoPiLP-CifvKUENqX4tlKZjd4>
Subject: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG Adoption of RFC6937bis
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, 30 Nov 2020 18:12:43 -0000

Hi folks,

This mail starts a WG adoption call for RFC6937bis draft.
As we've already seen positive supports for this work, we are not asking
people who already expressed their opinions this time. (but, if you want to
do it for some reason, please go ahead)
However, if you haven't done it yet, especially if you're against it, we
would like to encourage you to provide feedback.

We are thinking that the intended status of the doc will be PS based on the
feedback we've seen so far. But, if you have opinions on it, please let us
know.

Thank you so much,
--
Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs


On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:56 PM Matt Mathis <mattmathis=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> The authors of PRR would like to update PRR to Proposed Standard status.
> This entails introducing a new document as an tcpm work item.
>
> *Please indicate (non) support and/or comment.*
>
> For more details see the tcpm meeting materials from IETF 109
> minutes:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-tcpm-00
> slides: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mathis-tcpm-rfc6937bis-00
>
> There were about four "I support this work" remarks at the mic (not
> recorded in the minutes), and about as many in the Meetecho chat.
>
> Abridged IETF/tcpm/PRRbis slides:
> --
> PRR  recap (RFC6937 experimental)
> PRR is a special congestion control effective only during fast recovery
>
>    - When inflight >= ssthresh, send at loss_beta*rate_before_loss (e.g.
>    loss_beta = 0.5 for Reno (aka rate-halving), 0.7 for Cubic)
>    - When inflight < ssthresh, send at the same or twice the
>    delivery_rate (more later)
>    - Used by all congestion control modules in Linux during fast recovery
>       - Can be more dominant than the actual C.C. for lossy flows that’re
>       in fast recovery constantly (e.g. video streaming through policers)
>
> --
> Current Status
>
>    -
>
>    PRR is widely deployed
>    -
>
>       At least three major OSs: Linux, Windows, (NetFlix) BSD
>       -
>
>       Vast majority of Web traffic for years
>       -
>
>    No changes to algorithms published in RFC 6937
>    -
>
>       PRR-CRB - Conservative Reduction Bound - strict packet conversion
>       during loss recovery
>       -
>
>       PRR-SSRB - Slowstart Reduction Bound - one extra segment per ACK
>       during loss recovery
>       -
>
>    2015 Heuristic to dynamically select which reduction bound
>    -
>
>       Only use PRR-SSRB when making good forward progress
>       -
>
>          ACKs that advanced snd.una and report no new losses
>          -
>
>       Resolves some pathological cases with token bucket policers
>       -
>
>          CC estimates ssthresh before it can possibly measure the token
>          rate
>          -
>
>          The heuristic makes the best of a bad situation
>
> --
> Tentative path forward
>
>    -
>
>    Adopt as a tcpm work item
>    -
>
>    Update the text
>    -
>
>       Normative RFC 2119 language
>       -
>
>       Add MAY use the heuristic...
>       -
>
>       Trim redundant and obsolete language
>       -
>
>          RFC 6937 repeats itself and is much longer than necessary
>          -
>
>          Focus on what an implementer needs to know
>          -
>
>          Use non-normative references to RFC 6937 for prior measurement
>          work, etc
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay
>
> We must not tolerate intolerance;
>        however our response must be carefully measured:
>             too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of
> control;
>             too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval.
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>