Re: [tcpm] rfc5961 and suggested updates.

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Fri, 24 August 2018 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 8BA05127332 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 xXx6pIvKwJTh for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.72.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 519F6127333 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41xjlk60xjz15M2c; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:07:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at virgo02.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from virgo02.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (virgo02.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v5Bi6mO6vrte; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-MtScore: NO score=0
Received: from [192.168.178.24] (mue-88-130-61-056.dsl.tropolys.de [88.130.61.56]) by virgo02.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:07:29 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: =?utf-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CAOp4FwQqfJh6QiNbtcaH83gbZm+iPK5zpTCvje0W+Tpz+fjNng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 16:07:25 +0200
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DDE6A9C1-3FED-4F0A-84F1-355FA2EBFCF1@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <CAOp4FwQqfJh6QiNbtcaH83gbZm+iPK5zpTCvje0W+Tpz+fjNng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/IkZPXfsl9B3kOzb9PXrCXD6l164>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] rfc5961 and suggested updates.
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: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:07:35 -0000

Hi,

my personal opinion:

I agree that documenting the problem and recommending the implementation of per-socket limits would be a useful thing to do.

I don’t think it is appropriated or needed to update or even deprecate RFC5961, therefore I would strongly support the changes to this draft as you described below.

Mirja



> Am 24.08.2018 um 15:39 schrieb Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>om>:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I realized a few days ago that this draft:
> draft-lvelvindron-ack-throttling-02
> 
> was referenced here (slide 34):
> https://data.hackinn.com/ppt/2018%E7%9C%8B%E9%9B%AA%E5%BC%80%E5%8F%91%E8%80%85%E5%B3%B0%E4%BC%9A/TCP%E7%9A%84%E5%8E%84%E8%BF%90%EF%BC%8C%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE%E4%BE%A7%E4%BF%A1%E9%81%93%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E5%8F%8A%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8.pdf
> 
> There were some objections at the time regarding whether to update
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5961 or not:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg10433.html
> 
> Since the draft is referenced, I would consider doing some more work
> for an independent submission that clarifies rfc5961 or even an
> informational WG document. We can clarify section 7 and leave the
> deprecation out of the draft, as Joe disagreed on this part.
> 
> I would like to hear opinions.