Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Seeking WG opinions on ACKing ACKs with good cause (was: Possible error in accurate-ecn)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 30 March 2021 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 555953A1D2D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 wmveiw6tQoVH for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 E58603A1D2C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id u20so20864832lja.13 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TVOzQ/2jOLhxP9Hmjv2xcw5btp7a6qMewGMFLo1XtME=; b=rxhuEcK7vO8RiRmdL7oflEXqZxsaouf+G4JXzVhSwAl81pNbJpUdcvZX8LXkD6GGFe mffPIOS3tGVi8Kcmo3OlYAAGIZ5QxIkCiV2HAmEL6HbEYLnRxvgwn/XUU1Cj2oT17fTz UUPozrcLDr0KnmsKiK/3zLUDQq99JkxagG1KkR2P+Z2hO5qpNVpprDrIDRiLrxmwSXXA cHGZz9TjwL/rQDNLTDfYTPDCAys+03R08yiYWi/9t1g6k3dGdm+ENnMo6g6oJ5XsXHw9 IJaTRzRMGX802UHgKx0OJ3GnBBQtrGPszbltNojnTBETT5UI55ApFhNDTha03kcRfL2l CehQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TVOzQ/2jOLhxP9Hmjv2xcw5btp7a6qMewGMFLo1XtME=; b=Jv7cppxi7FngPgWMPxekfSJDofFc3NlBr+AjQXDqYG/mcKwQ7fTptLsMhs6hI61GHk F4tDClkmwbdTEy5XjdR1gc4eNRi0FGqTiuH5VtPUsiJRiXis157XP/dQZmEeSLamDqPg 3GTtByNPvRIhKkndOJHFe+QoXBAwaBhuYNfsYOZZpI2zmiK48lsl3nA6fdVZ5EWbR920 IMf7UN4IheFHeDDRLKUAwRo5Mi5H4OsQD5SeYeFSYxgVSQJ8EY5I9W/kGeLGNbKda6Vv ADFfnm5O9D5YG9B4dXXMSuDSAXMNWvLIYwnWwgPt+aGbFh3gYG5SEEQ6UZhNxxNxsseH d2kg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5329ZUKDvMpdTpJdDpr1PI80aZICGcQ1sUB/4KHTfkyEZNXymEJp w8fMf2G9jYW1a5QJVfVZPjN6amgU+zE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxX97LzMlUETSX+f7XYGL/xhJE8XosfoziFrUnLGVox5yqN2ns7ymm2XR3qDRfsbTvHk8mZ0w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:ca:: with SMTP id 10mr21873350ljr.63.1617127811045; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (178-55-25-11.bb.dnainternet.fi. [178.55.25.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm2250130lfh.142.2021.03.30.11.10.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E56EF702-39F0-4EBD-A5FC-23E9EC9B8941@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:10:09 +0300
Cc: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp" <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, "ietf@kuehlewind.net" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BEBABDB-A68C-4E21-BF78-24CCE54FCFE9@gmail.com>
References: <47df9b8b-515e-d40d-3473-599b0a3e3876@bobbriscoe.net> <6031BE2B-4D33-426F-BA17-DDF15CF821DE@kuehlewind.net> <060c8bd8-d64b-3e46-7874-742e35e6d114@bobbriscoe.net> <221e58f3-ada0-c880-db72-d98af84fedb8@gmx.at> <bd6ab65d-ccd5-9fa9-58be-6d9fea4af870@bobbriscoe.net> <CAAK044QgF4pz5Wamnxkobthou5ac4_LBxh8=nBYWyOxQUtcW-Q@mail.gmail.com> <8151fdef-ae78-80f3-adfc-d40db878ac8e@gmx.at> <CAAK044RhdAYexcGRj_XDkdY_o6JqB0DDo1X0H2AeFkRcsb0i4A@mail.gmail.com> <48c5910d-5340-acd6-8fd9-fff1b7758310@bobbriscoe.net> <CAAK044QOdi8DzBbLbwTvdcesFK21i1KU+Sj+4J7_odE5UQfmNg@mail.gmail.com> <dc11cd02-616e-93a7-7bcf-1e5112c2e1e1@bobbriscoe.net> <99B71B9A-EC9B-47FD-A149-FBEF9DEEC8DC@kuehlewind.net> <CAAK044SgdHAiBvDPHYOaq7-fgJTrBBoAqZQ70F5X3Q5HXvTEuw@mail.gmail.com> <ce4f09c2-2b50-8b35-3c3d-a01d45acce3b@bobbriscoe.net> <CAAK044SC4+=RBOEky34OzuirM-u_Om58Lm8uqSqkcpExSBwfHA@mail.gmail.com> <c98723ea-8cbe-5141-a127-33975676050c@gmx.at> <CO2PR00MB016662270FCE3E01AC4138D9B67D9@CO2PR00MB0166.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <E56EF702-39F0-4EBD-A5FC-23E9EC9B8941@apple.com>
To: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/4os1BXxgH6BGIN1ZVsI-4y1ZUjc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [EXTERNAL] Re: Seeking WG opinions on ACKing ACKs with good cause (was: Possible error in accurate-ecn)
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, 30 Mar 2021 18:10:17 -0000

> On 30 Mar, 2021, at 9:04 pm, Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>> How is the sender of the pure ACKs supposed to react upon receiving the feedback that ACKs themselves are causing congestion? Option B conveys this additional information but how is it supposed to be used? Can a pure receiver get into such a state and does it need to start throttling ACKs?
> 
> This was discussed briefly during the WG. The receiver will act by reducing the ssthresh and cwnd (if it is not already minimum). This wouldn’t impact the receiver’s ACKing, but it would have an impact when the receiver starts sending data.

The information could also be used to tune the Delayed Ack ratio, via (for example) Gomez' Ack Rate Request option.  That *would* have a congestion control effect on ack traffic.

 - Jonathan Morton