From nobody Sat Aug 6 08:25:24 2022 Return-Path: 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 1CC87C14F72C for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 08:25:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.325 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5dtIIavSm11r for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 08:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server217-2.web-hosting.com (server217-2.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.98]) (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 2B4B0C14F746 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2022 08:25:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: 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=BHF+y4yezsBI/8QBjP2mMO1Sm2ym4T6o4m6BZew47bQ=; b=2u2ad8Dj+wxrPdxO8RjK8Wp5pc qRHzuMddgHxHvJr66td+jMWx1hKt/HwT6K+aJb2Co6w3UDomEJdGZXs9Ci+0v1Bi8nVyv3ZfxSdk+ UOPelvyevJJjYJD5gzoyDhzflSajw+MUPmOFLkJqoRggSUMkUfPPlbEFjC6MEecQ1TEtJUYl/4kHb TXcWk9MGRSWY4Iq3JnklwvIxKYSZN2nl9rxZn56x5BEBCnafPiWE0510VFlyTzj07gKcCifc6qTXB exAtDgLlMYSlqunoYJwwLSx3DqUAZJ/fGKWlq18P7yUx3ysS14mDjaseLSRtTe486AScqGzlHFSBG 4kO0idyw==; Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:54424 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1oKLfr-00Cr9G-Hc; Sat, 06 Aug 2022 11:25:16 -0400 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46DCD20B-1062-40F7-977D-A1AA7B4772BD" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\)) From: "touch@strayalpha.com" In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2022 08:25:09 -0700 Cc: Jeffrey Haas , Michael Tuexen , Robert Raszuk , Susan Hares , "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , tcpm IETF list Message-Id: <0D8E1E5A-5CD1-4302-8FE9-21EFF9847199@strayalpha.com> References: To: Gyan Mishra X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched Archived-At: Subject: Re: [tcpm] IETF 114 TCPM WG - NG TCPM Yang Model X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 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: Sat, 06 Aug 2022 15:25:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_46DCD20B-1062-40F7-977D-A1AA7B4772BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Replies below... =E2=80=94 Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Jul 29, 2022, at 8:14 AM, Gyan Mishra = wrote: >=20 > Hi Joe=20 >=20 > Responses in-line=20 >=20 > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:13 PM touch@strayalpha.com = > wrote: > Notes below. >=20 > > On Jul 26, 2022, at 6:19 PM, Michael Tuexen = > wrote: > >=20 ... > > =E2=80=A2 All TCP flags and respective states. > > Do you mean the TCP flags SYN, FIN, PSH, ... Does a YANG module all = to describe > > packets sent and received? >=20 > I can=E2=80=99t see how this can model the TCP flags; all it should be = modeling is the states of the connection. The model is for TCP, not TCP = packets. >=20 > Gyan> Agreed that we want to model the TCP states not the packets. Then you need to consider only the parameters passed via socket options = that control those flags, not the flags themselves. I don=E2=80=99t know = if there is a common framework for them, though, esp. given the IETF = (incorrectly) abandoned the idea of the abstract user interface as part = of a protocol definition, at least for decades. > > =E2=80=A2 All TCP parameters that would be accessible with a local = OS kernel hook. > > Doesn't that mean the complete set of state variable the kernel has = and isn't that implementation dependent? > > =E2=80=A2 All windowing parameters including window scaling as well = as any windowing related optimizations. > > You mean the receiver window including the window scaling. > > =E2=80=A2 All TCP options and optimizations set such as Selective = ACK. > > I guess you mean the set of TCP extensions which have been = negotiated. > > =E2=80=A2 All TCP slow start congestion control parameters CWIN etc. > > There are a multiple Congestion Controls, even ones not being = specified by the IETF. > > So this might get very hard to do. Or do you require a specific CC = when using TCP for BGP? >=20 > This is where things get confusing to me; it seems that there is = either a model for TCP or a model for TCP implementations. The two = should not be confused with each other >=20 > Gyan> Yes I think specific CC-Congestion Control when using TCP = for BGP. As there are many implementations variations I think we want a = model for TCP that covers most all implementations=20 BGP is an application (to TCP); there is no one CC alg used in TCP just = because it supports BGP. Esp. given BGP runs not only on hardware routers but also on regular = computers. So if this is all aimed at helping BGP figure out when TCP isn=E2=80=99t = making progress, it seems like an impossibly large task (too many CC = algs). Are there particular parameters you think would be beneficial for = BGP to know about TCP and can they be abstracted away from specific = implementations? Joe= --Apple-Mail=_46DCD20B-1062-40F7-977D-A1AA7B4772BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Replies below...
=E2=80=94
Dr. Joe Touch, = temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

On Jul 29, 2022, at 8:14 AM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Joe 

Responses = in-line 

On Tue, Jul = 26, 2022 at 10:13 PM touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
Notes below.

> On Jul 26, 2022, at 6:19 PM, Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote:
>
...
> =E2=80=A2 All TCP flags and respective states.
> Do you mean the TCP flags SYN, FIN, PSH, ... Does a YANG module all = to describe
> packets sent and received?

I can=E2=80=99t see how this can model the TCP flags; all it should be = modeling is the states of the connection. The model is for TCP, not TCP = packets.

    Gyan> = Agreed that we want to model the TCP states not the = packets.

Then you need to consider only the parameters = passed via socket options that control those flags, not the flags = themselves. I don=E2=80=99t know if there is a common framework for = them, though, esp. given the IETF (incorrectly) abandoned the idea of = the abstract user interface as part of a protocol definition, at least = for decades.

> =E2=80=A2 All TCP parameters that would be accessible with a local = OS kernel hook.
> Doesn't that mean the complete set of state variable the kernel has = and isn't that implementation dependent?
> =E2=80=A2 All windowing parameters including window scaling as well = as any windowing related optimizations.
> You mean the receiver window including the window scaling.
> =E2=80=A2 All TCP options and optimizations set such as Selective = ACK.
> I guess you mean the set of TCP extensions which have been = negotiated.
> =E2=80=A2 All TCP slow start congestion control parameters CWIN = etc.
> There are a multiple Congestion Controls, even ones not being = specified by the IETF.
> So this might get very hard to do. Or do you require a specific CC = when using TCP for BGP?

This is where things get confusing to me; it seems that there is either = a model for TCP or a model for TCP implementations. The two should not = be confused with each other

    Gyan> Yes = I think specific CC-Congestion Control when using TCP for BGP.  As = there are many implementations variations I think we want a model for = TCP that covers most all = implementations 

BGP is an application (to TCP); there is no one CC = alg used in TCP just because it supports BGP.

Esp. given BGP runs not only on hardware routers = but also on regular computers.

So if this is all aimed at helping BGP figure out when TCP = isn=E2=80=99t making progress, it seems like an impossibly large task = (too many CC algs). Are there particular parameters you think would be = beneficial for BGP to know about TCP and can they be abstracted away = from specific implementations?

Joe
= --Apple-Mail=_46DCD20B-1062-40F7-977D-A1AA7B4772BD--