Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Thu, 11 February 2021 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.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 AB0CF3A086E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 p81G99oD00f8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (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 8DF9A3A0867 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id y134so3504484wmd.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UkhnibpgPowfUSLz8Koeo/R4KsHutQEdVXOrFfrtGvE=; b=iEVD35LuPed4HjHt0gpvapysHi8uWxevCCGhkxIZ9oe3bzHogDek9ersA4fEC82jZx tK9nG3oKy74aFQlNejewbwW3drG2tlgcv/UzovGhxeJKd4yOAC2BQboQHODg+vAhZ5wT pgx95z0AIx7C0S34Kr7AvL/+mWBxk4RrTOxPwUphgZ/4xlB1/KlQaM/X+OX5J7RUgW9G jkH8v9ay+o7MF5A5ScKtapWuVZRjct5akn6klF4OLHWVu3mVGhUQ3lSuWbePQnQd0qaP mHtL03ZbPudj6I62fKZQ14hChG1b2xOTm5LrvvPWqcP3V4NnxcKOGdJPfKtediH5zJAV Dzxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UkhnibpgPowfUSLz8Koeo/R4KsHutQEdVXOrFfrtGvE=; b=X14oEu9dgFJ32og2aPHDtoW0q6iicL77D8MUWxDG5DVbtYqai6/9NHazFogIVmvaib zx6+fIawLndAx3Gp7FqJUuQeqFQAWnJzboM7Dw1pFtWZ54Z8NpJC9pRl1e7x8xpR5qyZ ze3UkMZQqqEEP5Z/77Ze+WMXsZ8j4pIkinQEGZf46BxDjoxX7W2VG5/MQN2irR0UgRHw Ov9tHGJONINg3EC+p9CQ2CIhJ5pXpK/qqfFSujn0vDJxOW9NtoxRYZS8TD0KL1ZFAdBd Ck6CM6/9p0Oet7b1juFFIwj6gQidfivRUEU+K/rCIfYObBVoyV9TwpbZDL0xNsltcVOP 9kwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335JuGIgCDVIMl5m4nYapuCpEsW09sPX+zPk+vF4rvW6I5OTUOU HyWCDxNYjxMBtv6DLujf2PxxiEjW8JyrBM9a4dzfag==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWFgKdGuGbnKQBeLA06hhhD7ZkMLC6oOGaV5bXYC2YrgoIhCf2L2/+/6RFcVZq8X7gACkzXxLCfZb2J3eZCzQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c852:: with SMTP id c18mr1742923wml.118.1613002484002; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cd600644350847ef8415d21588d1e912@hs-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <cd600644350847ef8415d21588d1e912@hs-esslingen.de>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:14:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=fs_EaMpAEmpV=7_ZwmtugN=1rnuxRjfY4zPxEiyp8NgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Dfcp6Z-pESx-R2XxEH-1QQgFiYg>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis ready to go?
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 00:14:49 -0000

I think it's ready. Kudos to Wes for the N-years-long effort to put
this together!

Minor:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20#section-3.7.4

The less clear part is the wording of "idle connections". Idleness can
be interpreted in several ways: no recent rx, tx, or both {on the wire
| on socket interface}. It'd be good to define more clearly. AFAIK
implementations have different definitions already leading to
different KA behaviors.




On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:00 AM Scharf, Michael
<Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20 has been submitted recently. According to Wes, all WGLC feedback should be reflected in this version. A link to a complete diff can be found below.
>
> During WGLC, there has been quite some discussion on the exact wording on congestion control. The suggested text in version -20 is copied below:
>
> 3.7.2.  TCP Congestion Control
>
>    RFC 2914 [7] explains the importance of congestion control for the
>    Internet.
>
>    RFC 1122 required implementation of Van Jacobson's congestion control
>    algorithms slow start with congestion avoidance together with
>    exponential back-off for successive RTO values for the same segment.
>    RFC 2581 provided IETF Standards Track description of slow start and
>    congestion avoidance, along with fast retransmit and fast recovery.
>    RFC 5681 is the current description of these algorithms and is the
>    current Standards Track specification providing guidelines for TCP
>    congestion control.  RFC 6298 describes exponential back-off of RTO
>    values, including keeping the backed-off value until a subsequent
>    segment with new data has been sent and acknowledged.
>
>    A TCP endpoint MUST implement the basic congestion control algorithms
>    slow start, congestion avoidance, and exponential back-off of RTO to
>    avoid creating congestion collapse conditions (MUST-19).  RFC 5681
>    and RFC 6298 describe the basic algorithms on the IETF Standards
>    Track that are broadly applicable.  Multiple other suitable
>    algorithms exist and have been widely used.  Many TCP implementations
>    support a set of alternative algorithms that can be configured for
>    use on the endpoint.  An endpoint may implement such alternative
>    algorithms provided that the algorithms are conformant with the TCP
>    specifications from the IETF Standards Track as described in RFC
>    2914, RFC 5033 [10], and RFC 8961 [15].
>
>    Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) was defined in RFC 3168 and is
>    an IETF Standards Track enhancement that has many benefits [50].
>
>    A TCP endpoint SHOULD implement ECN as described in RFC 3168 (SHLD-
>    8).
>
> As document shepherd I ask everybody - specifically all TCPM contributors who have commented on congestion control - to carefully review this proposed wording within the next few days. If there are any issues with this suggested resolution of the WGLC, please speak up!
>
> If the TCPM working group is fine with version -20, 793bis would be ready to go.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:02 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
>         Author          : Wesley M. Eddy
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20.txt
>         Pages           : 110
>         Date            : 2021-01-21
>
> Abstract:
>    This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).  TCP
>    is an important transport layer protocol in the Internet protocol
>    stack, and has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth of
>    the Internet.  Over this time, a number of changes have been made to
>    TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been
>    documented in a piecemeal fashion.  This document collects and brings
>    those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793.
>    This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093,
>    6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793.  It updates RFC
>    1122, and should be considered as a replacement for the portions of
>    that document dealing with TCP requirements.  It also updates RFC
>    5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling while in the
>    SYN-RECEIVED state.  The TCP header control bits from RFC 793 have
>    also been updated based on RFC 3168.
>
>    RFC EDITOR NOTE: If approved for publication as an RFC, this should
>    be marked additionally as "STD: 7" and replace RFC 793 in that role.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-20
>
>
> 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.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm