[tcpm] AD Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-09

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 02 September 2022 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 95333C15257E; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Jkkas4IrwdWc; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16DF7C15257C; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id a22so2580306qtw.10; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date; bh=kObeLfX7pJIwxkKOXz1ZTir97ZcHcqh2QT8Il/3CA9I=; b=LNPKa+ILhMKqx7KlCsa7IKta05PsvH7sehofmkmR8SWmzSn/9Pgd4ufsUrjCwhBtnm ty4P+7nUbVPTUhleJRN/CEzqs4W4vJKM2SNosVA+/owxUz/UNesxzupycWoP3FureS1O t9xVgyQR58h+3C+u6IJhnf+KheS1S01Si6RO378I6wL9U5gsKuNmDf83d9TI0jmk6A1T tb+nNG+eQVtM7PCdhDVCaLBxk/W0J+Z/B6jZQsG/nVAG7ZrWkarsu2NwPEmZUx1dUE3C dWDcFpDSs3boMPkISb669S7qVRzH/kPjL9Jj8sXLfekNxlziGIsKMFANtE2e4d2f+LaC /0XQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=kObeLfX7pJIwxkKOXz1ZTir97ZcHcqh2QT8Il/3CA9I=; b=AItCjSNf+peVuy17xpM1PuMJCwhV2YaY577abfoCaRDGLXPLNwy9vyPDitCCqOBDZY lgw4O4sH45eW9hNVJUQj6+P6HNrnr41NhkD58J3scEn6vOUjcEVkbm4HcrHJwCESDWQ6 MNqMCV+5uHTKKtdlhs9qIJeu1CseSvYE1AvxSiFv23n9+kH14mxU8iUbBV4BhT/5MdiS OojosQbg/LDWSL8yMSUrp/nyYyh11oOa6Fj7XS93r/LZID2+bkSIFSb2YozECfvn9Xgj 2lqirH/pVoRHnBo6DE+eeLa5IVaArM7qY6y2Ihc4pBr2tXLRJbLtKCpc5gObJH4nCLnX 7kwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2ZN28fVuOEtDaobvPAqVXsOOZmRLIkaU/LATTrrJ817LLK9HXr v0dAa6wBri9lS0E4sOnD9Tr2wQJMMDrYieEBqC8oi93k
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4VxJEXK/ymT2jeySuTeJS/8HW7xFAYNxOvMAOu8lxXLXJxAkZmlAMbni47zmE0sHKuQWny0f+X9HIWrnlS0a4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1e12:b0:344:54ee:6865 with SMTP id br18-20020a05622a1e1200b0034454ee6865mr29389027qtb.200.1662159170531; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:52:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxTikRRRLOtmO4bezXvjjDiQ3cpRNqtT_2YaEUQrFUrECw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus.all@ietf.org
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb776605e7b996e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/FhBS21q2cJo6ztMy714XpknSAIo>
Subject: [tcpm] AD Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-hystartplusplus-09
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 22:52:59 -0000

Thank you for this concise and very readable document.

My only major concern is the old subject of RFC3465 (ABC) being
Informative, but a downref if we make it Normative. In my opinion, the
document as written is not implementable without 3465 and it should be a
normative reference.

If I am correct about the status quo, the only part of 3465 that is not in
5681 (and therefore still Experimental) is the use of L > 1 in slow start.

There are three approaches to handling this problem.

1. Eliminate L from the spec, and use the RFC5681 slow start formula.
What's bad about this is that IIUC we have no data with L=1. But we could
say in Section 5 that the tests also used RFC 3465 with L=8 and the market
decide what to do with that.

2. Send to the RFC Editor with a normative reference; the doc will be
"done", but will not publish until ABC goes to PS (which is not imminent,
to say the least).

3. What I think you've actually done here is standardized RFC3465 behavior
only when combined with CSS (i.e. a partial promotion of ABC). I think this
is the best course of action, but if we're going to do that, we should go
all the way:

(a) Add a definition of L and a discussion of how to set it -- basically
Sec 2.3 of RFC3465 but presumably with no L=2 limit. If we're going to
publish a standard with a higher cap on L we really ought to have that
discussion.

(b) It can "update" or "obsolete" 3465 depending on whether or not the WG
cares to keep the experimental status of ABC-without-CSS.

The community apparently has consensus that L > 1, even L >  2, *in this
context* is safe, so I don't see it as reckless to make this change.

I'm happy to have a dialogue about this.

NITS:
(3) s/definition/definitions

(4.1) "The Inter Packet Arrival algorithm does not perform well." If
there's a useful citation here (or for the results discussed in Section 5)
that would be nice to include.

(4.1) s/it's concluded that/the algorithm concludes

Thanks again!
Martin