IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06

"Richard Scheffenegger" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Thu, 01 March 2018 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
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 5644212D86A; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JXJQVPGSq9xa; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:25:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 5957912711D; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:25:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srichardlxp2 ([213.143.121.76]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MGEv5-1etpiE2wxL-00F9wk; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <23187136694049B3BEA2C7FAD794E280@srichardlxp2>
From: Richard Scheffenegger <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tcpm@ietf.org
Cc: tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
References: <7A3A6ECE-550B-4E5F-9D61-83C8969A7B93@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:13:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xVlyqzkxbcNz7kDzb/sWiO/55qDoNOL1Xb+ZW5MNK2gn5+i6PsR UuoV97/EiK9jNngLmTkWfQwfVLG4uwcjNkX0TUg24wMd6ehMqEGQZfH3mXRpB24kun0qWbS 67wH4mir5wox2a5lnXjMLrFvs32aMnEC4bqXYGJklAzRvdBf6kghGtRLFtJejG1Vq3n9V+N wJyqwYOPxh/nbMenimiCQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:XAhYWs+8HR4=:W9Jk2MkIv6Bs4zOyGDjfLH WYEUh/xS+NFqv7ARv5bRklTw0ygMItITsZn9XuDBkWGGna+XVLnj5Mo0fBkVY4OQKJqL9I7pJ LN/RCw+ezcTQr74V+jYiJVOjeQublfi90lXBo02ZvE5TnprLIgEbn/36cyx3kKZNPnPXCrQE8 pU7RHvahbFxsnwCvyFi0HIQDjoE41ng0TF46CWaxbkkFGydP/5oSCmvaA/Fln7EZAT4r4VREI K5+wn3K7e/JpaHwtTYy2iBVcnAFiG+159RoBESRyZaOmREs0dPM0h9aVhd3wIxz9I75e6GIGC 1RABHQFP90a61DOnvre2i9idthjosayxRf89NZPT8QBXt1yIRLdcfMqpWMAHAiN22pj4cl8kz 7mGW5BZE5EmhEPjfF7iJ/KV8y8C9lYCepWBjCU8B75G7sIRgfHzu0023w9EYotx7PCUqsh99f fFkPETjoRuK0mi+/mzYwDwQAa9pNLMTZ0MhulC6ygKZK9ZfuK3sFTKRtEnkA24sqrP2QYJ8YG AW6uuap4pHepbDPOU2iva0zMYD+0lVFXWiX4I74su5xdSh4tV1tsrS6cbm4AQwE/jN27EIs31 64aMl7lS3dUoYjcJXuk3aD1jsQ8NyBuNnl27fY2hs0AI+I6m0BnF5kmkEMWSvApodir6MxcTj FlGYqQJGQ1zcR7A6mKNy9lBuBlyUHl46Pt8VBAAclt95IvzlVC6SkrE0cQEdkxJYenHksB/Fx BEvtco6+3NUzMpUWQjwBzvWBXXJ8DeJJH++p7w8aF3NYaphmf0T1+sQHGJBnz7bEQ0D52Dla7 l8w0TDqAcfk++LdjhMegrBBhFj8AclXNdGCqYWLwyniWhcavqY=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/GL_Gh_q43YO147u1L7iIO4tQV_Q>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 Mar 2018 10:25:39 -0000

Hi,

Some of the I-D references are already RFCs;

Reading the FreeBSD modular cubic code, using a beta value of 0.8 (vs. 0.7 
reportedy in Linux), I'm wondering if some generic rules-of-thumb, as to 
what a reasonable beta_loss vs. beta_ecn adjustment would be in this RFC 
might be in order (although I agree, that CCs should come up with reasonable 
guidance there).

Other than this, I like this draft, as it also gives some additional 
incouragement to deploy ECN.

Best regards,
  Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Tuexen" <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
To: <tcpm@ietf.org>
Cc: <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
Subject: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-06


> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email