Re: [tcpm] AccECN field order

"Scharf, Michael" <> Mon, 16 November 2020 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1953A09DB; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:36:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e08zb2QsuvB6; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34C33A1337; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3BB25A12; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:36:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1605548163; bh=K9/FSl4wZSWXbeeXJgZtPUPSgZvndsyUurN4gJyV3lo=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=s2hIDOXIMJgOY4LHZzPidOGAf/nhhL3kRmeYAhy+xMUGDQ+bKqdDFMxY6hFt7uF8h waRAx8Wwk8VJe87W2k4Nneugq/5dUISgO3ErjXthMKRxxM1XB/205AlGYFFlFeX4jk ydOcDpXoYfGaJFVi4bemU8f8WSBZr4MxLG3j65P4=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpXdUxGs5qK2; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:36:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:36:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:36:01 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.006; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:36:01 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>, Yoshifumi Nishida <>
CC: Michael Tuexen <>, "" <>, Mirja Kuehlewind <>, "Scheffenegger, Richard" <>, tcpm IETF list <>
Thread-Topic: AccECN field order
Thread-Index: AQHWvDjFKAN34ufmsUi0uesNI2lMmanK+nPQ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:36:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b3ae297684b04461be4e5ef5bbe3c83ahsesslingende_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] AccECN field order
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:36:08 -0000


One proposal using the length field with *one option codepoint only* is detailed in:

It is the third option mentioned in this e-mail. One example would be to use option length values 5/8/11 for one encoding type and option length values 6/9/12 for the other encoding type (i.e., order of fields). Or one could use some other combination of length values – the only requirement is that a certain value for the option length is only used by one of the option formats. In that approach, the value of the length field would thus directly describe the encoding of the option. Unless I miss something, this would work and it would just require one option codepoint.

Thus, alternatives to two option codepoints exist and I have explained them on the list in March 2020.

Anyway, I don’t really care how the options are encoded as long as the receiver doesn’t need per-connection state for decoding a TCP option. So, personally, I would be fine with using e.g. the length field as described in my old e-mail. Or an additional flag byte. And one could come up with further encodings, e.g., by using one or a few bits as a short “type” field for each counter. This is all about protocol engineering. And all these variants have their pros and cons.

I am also fine with using two option codepoints as specified in -13; this is probably the approach that consumes the least number of bits.

Michael (w/o any hat)

From: Bob Briscoe <>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 5:52 PM
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Cc: Scharf, Michael <>; Michael Tuexen <>;; Mirja Kuehlewind <>; Scheffenegger, Richard <>; tcpm IETF list <>
Subject: AccECN field order

Yoshi, (adding the tcpm list in cc)
On 05/11/2020 06:58, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
Hi Bob,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Bob Briscoe <<>> wrote:
On 04/11/2020 06:51, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
Hi, folks,

In my understanding, I'm not sure if we settled down on using two option kinds or encoding schemes for 24bits fields in acc ecn draft.
So, I think there're still something to be clarified and hope things will be settled at the meeting.

[BB] I know a WG can change it's mind at any time. But I'd rather we just clarified what a previous decision was, to avoid the need to keep re-opening discussion on a question that have been decided then changed three different ways already.

My memory is not so good these days. I trusted that Michael S remembered the decision correctly, and I seem to remember that decision being made.
I've just checked the minutes of the last interim:
and they mention Michael's proposal to use two kinds, but don't record any decision.
The jabber log gives no clues about any decision.

I can't find an audio or video recording. Can you point me at one?

I thought that it's because there was no clear decision at the meeting.
But, you can check
Please let us know if you have any questions or opinions with regard to this.

[BB] I checked the Youtube link you sent below.

First I think we're agreed no-one was fighting for us to keep the previous way we did this (using the initial value of the field to set the order for the connection).
In my presentation I said there was strong resistance from Michael to do it a different way.
(also, offlist, the co-authors including me also didn't like this so much. And Ilpo said it made the implementation complex.)

Then came the question of what we do instead. There were three alternative proposals:
a) use 2 option kinds
b) add a flags byte
c) somehow use the length field maybe

Michael raised (c) in the meeting as a possibility, but no-one could think how to distinguish two options of the same length but a different field order using the length field. Michael said he'd post any ideas to the list if he could think of any, but that didn't happen.

So we're left choosing between (a) and (b).
I said in the meeting (and on the list when discussing with Ilpo) that I'd be happy to go with (b), but only if there was another use for a flag. Because it would consume 1B more options space in many packets, which is a scarce resource.

Ilpo had a proposed use for another flag (to help synch counters after a loss), but I think the discussion about it ended that it wouldn't be helpful, 'cos the way it worked depended on itself (circular logic).

In conclusion, I don't think there was an explicit decision to go with 2 option kinds, but it ended up as the 'last person standing'.
I like it. It's simple. And apparently option kinds are not such a scarce resource.

Perhaps we can ratify this in the WG tomorrow.





Bob Briscoe