Re: [tcpm] Concluding WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 31 August 2021 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 93C5C3A0A5E; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 VHhdtgCUdMFs; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 04:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 ECC6D3A0A4D; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 04:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1d1f:3f58:e36a:a55c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61EDA600373; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:10:08 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1630408208; bh=kTq3rZARETgo57nLRpXTH+QBFp5frp2QuK5dUwPEVas=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=lazJkXaAX1CUYINvhrL1PGO1RBN4vxMUjIPBp4bIIuYBwU7TCediCL/Krfep/swWp 9eOZjFot+tsHo3tZo9b4swofg6W2C060nq/IL8eODv1svn2b936ppcCM6b9cbrz8rl ZlEZ184QiFyNgZoV3p1vejcMvgwb6GhT9eLguAbU=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <37C22CF4-611E-4663-B88B-02AED2AF630B@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_04408EAD-D009-4744-8D76-2C88F5503850"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:10:07 +0300
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2108300740560.5845@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Markku Kojo <kojo=40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <CAAK044SjMmBnO8xdn2ogWMZTcecXoET1dmZqd6Dt3WzOUi359A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2108300740560.5845@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
X-MailScanner-ID: 61EDA600373.AFC6C
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ATGTx1pujnR-8jtk6yh_AZlmzNQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Concluding WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03
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, 31 Aug 2021 11:10:34 -0000

Hi Markku,

On 2021-8-30, at 19:33, Markku Kojo <kojo=40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> My sincere apologies as this comes very late in the process but I was not able to follow IETF mailing list at the time of WGLC nor during the recent weeks, and I couldn't attend IETF 111.

it's always a bit disappointing to get a long review just when you thought you were done, but it will lead to a better document in the end - so thank you for your review!

We've created a bunch of GitHub issues based on the issues you identified, and will work on resolutions there. Do you have a GitHub ID we can use to tag you?

> 1. ECN
> 
> a) The draft modifies RFC 3168 when ECE arrives and would result
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/83

> b) RFC 8311 (sec 4.1) allows modifying the TCP-sender response to
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/84

> c) ABE (RFC 8511) is currently the only experimental RFC to modify
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/85

> 2. Slow-Start Overshoot w/ loss-based congestion conrol
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/86

> 3. RACK (and QUIC)
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/87

> 4. Fairness to AIMD congestion control
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/88

> 5. Contribution to buffer bloat and slower convergence due to
>   larger decrease factor
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/89

> 6. Citing Experimental RFCs as if being a part of CUBIC
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/90

> 7. Discussion
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/91

> Sec 5.1
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/92

> Sec 5.3
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/93

> Sec 5.4
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/94

> Sec 5.5
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/95

> Sec 5.6
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/96

> Sec 5.8
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/97

> Sec 5.9
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/98

> 8. The draft says in the intro that CUBIC is to be regarded as *current standard* for TCP
...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/99

> Misc comments:
> 
> _epoch_start_: needs more accurate and consistent definition when the exactly the epoch

...
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/100

> In many occassions:
> "(upon receiving) an ACK" -> "(upon receiving) a new ACK"

https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/101

> On page 13:
https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/102

Thanks,
Lars