IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] New Version - draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-07.txt

"Zimmermann, Alexander" <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com> Mon, 22 September 2014 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991BC1A1B64 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 KbZNlkxy34vx for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9D21A1B4E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,572,1406617200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="153187708"
Received: from hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.38]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2014 09:59:40 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:58:41 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX06-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::20d9:8f0e:9660:40ad%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0913.011; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:58:40 -0700
From: "Zimmermann, Alexander" <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com>
To: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] New Version - draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP00zq8EvvuvtTpEywMpP3IrDTc5wN2+AA
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <DE036639-1BCA-491D-96F3-ED38F14CE892@netapp.com>
References: <20140913074311.28129.72796.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0db9fb03774c3c5002530064864d496e.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <0db9fb03774c3c5002530064864d496e.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBB37531-4BE1-442E-96C8-C52A973F2834"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6Nnh0AdngPPtYzGxF--cdv0Mryc
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version - draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-07.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 22 Sep 2014 16:59:51 -0000

Hi Gorry,

C&P from the TCPM 90 minutes:

"Yuchung: Linux uses different algorithm to detect cwnd limited. We
recently submitted a patch. What are your comments about the
difference of the two? How does this interact with TSO?
          
Gorry: I don't know it.
          
Yuchung: Let's take it offline.
          
Gorry: Is it likely to change the spec?
          
Yuchung: We believe our idea is probably simpler. Yours is more
difficult to implement. Linux uses TSO which creates a different way
to see if cwnd is limited. These are interesting issues to consider
which are not addressed in this draft.“

Gorry can you comment on this? Is this already discussed w/ Yuchung?
Can change the draft to reflect his ideas or is this completely
incompatible w/ NewCVW?

Greetings
Alex

Am 18.09.2014 um 10:29 schrieb gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk:

> 
> The authors have submitted this update to CWV:
> 
> - It updates text on ECN to clarify the process where R is a reduction
> based on ECN marks, and with the expectation this aligns better the
> current work on ECN within TCPM.
> 
> -It notes that cwnd shouldn't be reduced below one MSS.
> 
> - It also contains very minor changes to addresses all the current issues
> noted with the draft.
> 
> We'd like to hear comments on this version.
> 
> Gorry & Co-authors
> 
>> 
>> A new version (-07) has been submitted for draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-07.txt
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv/
>> 
>> Diff from previous version:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-07
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> IETF Secretariat.
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email