Re: [tcpm] Further comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Tue, 17 July 2018 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 A5E1B130E62; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
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 U4J-vtK72He6; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECC6B130DEB; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KSk74B6Lyui+5H/Jpsweq5YtBia40Wc5hEXqGNLJIaM=; b=2eM499pRpNS+bbm5S/dFqj3eD QfBJGDa9Xau4C1zdNb95P7NrjnUMinottQQ8NROt2i/69xu/+7kSl1HX1NXgyrvxcA3330v2QGlQU EPRQCOeRjNxNPw6axgiHubw9QmoyeaxML5twD18Ve9NbIU9YX0W5fPsPcvFYKGqCl3mqa+3+p3T6A mcuN+iDsuSmVCF0/FNZH+GIgeGhMXf2fExAFaIjsDbvxgWIXi2vhcZRhn0BSk/E6OHriUSBRgibEA fYMns5ttpqtjLhUoRyZenI6ONpt2qipLl15ILGrTcDGv0W1dXCQaHX3BqCYzB0SDhL8f0BhLFjcJU J3/5HHtNQ==;
Received: from dhcp-94a4.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.148.164]:41274) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1ffWZt-0004zQ-GM; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:28:10 +0100
To: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <AM2PR07MB086725AB3E0DFF2CFFAAE07A935E0@AM2PR07MB0867.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <9cc642a7-10e9-3adb-2c49-4a52da9d206c@bobbriscoe.net> <VI1PR07MB0880170EF06C9CE1C63A464C935C0@VI1PR07MB0880.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <b9125c5a-d774-8d16-aec5-6712bd4bdb2f@bobbriscoe.net> <VI1PR07MB088038B7B4E017DCCF4F2718935C0@VI1PR07MB0880.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <c79e6b9f-c270-64b6-c6c0-1250b0c04fc6@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:28:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB088038B7B4E017DCCF4F2718935C0@VI1PR07MB0880.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F2B4DD23B351CBD619BC4D20"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/CLohNHBp-Tp1rB6e4sjvVwR8mvY>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Further comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 17 Jul 2018 20:28:19 -0000

Michael,

OK RECOMMENDED -> recommended.
That's good, otherwise I think ECN++ would have become a normative 
reference.

> Alternatively, a more statement not related to the status would be “a 
> combination of AccECN with RFC 5562 is outside the scope of this 
> document”.
Someone who had never even thought about combining AccECN with RFC5562 
might think we mean "AccECN could also be combined with RFC5562, but 
this isn't the place to talk about it?"

How about:

    It is recommended that the AccECN protocol is implemented alongside

    the experimental ECN++ protocol [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn>].
    Therefore, this specification does not discuss implementing AccECN
    alongside the earlier experimental alternative to ECN++ in [RFC5562].





Bob

On 17/07/18 08:57, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
>
> I would prefer the first, shorter wording.
>
> For instance, it would be possible that TCPM decides to obsolete RFC 
> 5562. I’d suggest to keep the status and future use of RFC 5562 in 
> combination with ECN++ outside of this document.
>
> What might be in scope of the AccECN spec would be a hypothetical use 
> of AccECN in combination with RFC 5562. But I would be fine with just 
> omitting that. Alternatively, a more statement not related to the 
> status would be “a combination of AccECN with RFC 5562 is outside the 
> scope of this document”.
>
> Actually, I am also not sure if this paragraph is a good example for 
> RECOMMENDED in a capital letters. To me, the following would be 
> sufficient:
>
>     It is recommended that the AccECN protocol is implemented along with
>     the experimental ECN++ protocol [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn>].
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*Bob Briscoe [mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:43 PM
> *To:* Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) 
> <michael.scharf@nokia.com>om>; draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn@ietf.org; 
> tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] Further comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
>
> Michael,
>
> I've written the proposed edits into a local copy of draft-08, which 
> we'll post after this IETF.
>
> Wile writing the last point, I thought it best to add an extra sentence.
>
>     It is RECOMMENDED that the AccECN protocol is implemented along with
>     the experimental ECN++ protocol [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn>].
>     [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn] is a proposed alternative to another
>     experimental scheme [RFC5562] so there is no need to implement RFC
>     5562 along with AccECN.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> On 17/07/18 01:05, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
>
>     This would for for me.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Michael
>
>     *From:*Bob Briscoe [mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:34 AM
>     *To:* Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)
>     <michael.scharf@nokia.com> <mailto:michael.scharf@nokia.com>;
>     draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn@ietf.org
>     <mailto:draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org
>     <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] Further comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
>
>     Michael,
>
>     On 15/07/18 16:54, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>           
>
>         While reading draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07, I noticed the following:
>
>           
>
>           
>
>         Section 1. Introduction
>
>           
>
>             It is likely (but not required) that the AccECN protocol will be
>
>             implemented along with the following experimental additions to the
>
>             TCP-ECN protocol: ECN-capable TCP control packets and retransmissions
>
>             [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn], which includes the ECN-capable SYN/
>
>             ACK experiment [RFC5562]; and testing receiver non-compliance
>
>             [I-D.moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat].
>
>           
>
>         [ms] I have commented on this section before. And I still dislike the term "likely". To me, "likely" is speculation. A neutral phrasing would be "... it is possible..." or "... it is useful...". Having said this, I observe that draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat-03 was last updated in 2014. How "likely" is it that the AccECN protocol will be implemented along with a mechanism documented in an ID that has been written more than 10 years ago and not been updated for about 4 years? Are implementers indeed so interested in draft-moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat that an implementation is "likely"?
>
>
>     I agree. For ECN++, I think something like your suggestion of
>     "useful", or even RECOMMENDED is what is needed here. I think the
>     testing receiver compliance one could be removed from the intro.
>     It's mentioned under testing for unexpected interference and under
>     integrity checking, which are sufficient.
>
>     Also, this makes me notice that the word "includes" is wrong.
>     ECN++ intends to obsolete RFC5562, but I don't think we need to
>     mention that here (cos it might change before ECN++ gets published).
>
>     CURRENT TEXT:
>
>         It is likely (but not required) that the AccECN protocol will be
>
>         implemented along with the following experimental additions to the
>
>         TCP-ECN protocol: ECN-capable TCP control packets and retransmissions
>
>         [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn>], which includes the ECN-capable SYN/
>
>         ACK experiment [RFC5562 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5562>]; and testing receiver non-compliance
>
>         [I-D.moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.moncaster-tcpm-rcv-cheat>].
>
>     PROPOSED TEXT:
>
>         It is RECOMMENDED that the AccECN protocol is implemented along with
>
>         the experimental ECN++ protocol [I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-07#ref-I-D.ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn>].
>
>
>
>
>           
>
>           
>
>           
>
>         Section 2.1.  Capability Negotiation
>
>             
>
>             The TCP server sends the AccECN
>
>             Option on the SYN/ACK and the client sends it on the first ACK to
>
>             test whether the network path forwards the option correctly.
>
>           
>
>         [ms] According to Section 3.2.6, options are RECOMMENDED. While Section 2 is not normative, the whole Section 2 does not really describe well the actual requirements regarding options. This paragraph in Section 2.1 is one example for that. It would make sense to be more explicit in Section 2 to which extent options have to be supported.
>
>     OK, we need to review section 2, to ensure it is consistent with
>     changes that have been made in the normative section 3 since it
>     was written.
>
>     In this particular case, we already promised to check (offlist
>     with an implementer) that there was no text that contradicted the
>     optionality of the option stated at the end of Section 3.2.6.
>
>     I have already started this with a list I prepared (also offlist)
>     of which middlebox checking sections an implementer could ignore
>     if they were only reading but not sending the TCP options.
>
>
>
>
>     Bob
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     ________________________________________________________________
>
>     Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/