IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-09: AccECN option: why not EE1B first?

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 15 November 2019 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@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 5735F120929 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YfYw5ZkDX5L3 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 12EF212091F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id l17so10260058wmh.0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TsgsHdBnkhraJviOoGBvll+NLM1QLGTtZvgB4k9RcBM=; b=PsWjlWdx2Y1R+6OZinTOp//1vLCExZ5+mJezXYEgxAny/Nj3LYtkFfUsGWsih+QzCV zUsZ14F2IS1jQxwXfCT9deVhiQNucGtdRzh1+2nDYKSzhnaQX2OumcqTqYP2e71TOjw0 7uVsSgubYhiThZV0o/oRRzk5Lo8aE+e1t2KG5w9eyW4ZSi3+DPD/YMwcEWwqE5+eMbNc 9KvgatTLENsWlvFeMwd0JptXH10ToyPh+i9bsMeEi4xue15DDQgJqbHidglreWUcq2Xx hdHCsWPGRKknEx0cswvTVxyGKNDjNJkfFldz4m8ibDraJiFvXObDzks+lvUCyqFXj4be 0KTw==
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; bh=TsgsHdBnkhraJviOoGBvll+NLM1QLGTtZvgB4k9RcBM=; b=QgPVRN+0QVhksyba7tegO4T5sW4PwwWcAzpFKtV3ufv2wN1ZJebXoECGo4d/RnQ2ND uV1i+YKArdt2+Qo0XNgrNaE8Q4EVrMZXvKuPY0/wnQxjxoTHhshYMQH8tAyc/XA6JBsk hWj5GcIeHKnUxOpDjxfmxr2D2iaoAC0zRB94k5L0QTPcTSh0zb0o17wLDhcOYK28PyO/ j920cKbu6a4QmFaAUM7I/88uM58kiccGcCBVkiONp8PjTWwdS7EQjtg3G510twRHkcHf forwQ3V9bqXme0xj5qaj5HfpIbkkHihysxEsXmpJyo4SoFl4F/MaLIqTKMwGLJACcBIm PxOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/aSJNHTEmVBUqCEpOwI3jCKu05DxGz33bPcjboUrxzt9OoxFP sboiY83VtL+rr7nSTi0JSLOcd5DwkpldjKPqO8o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxTFDcUSrhH++j419iHPv26etxAgCMnoReAzk0s3/phF6JeHQBeUT0aRnwTj/6/alYbHk3bBmFrYVuImWxKnI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:21d9:: with SMTP id x25mr16734319wmj.50.1573835669565; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADVnQykh-MjnfzNtRQ22fwxUS3BY_YOJOPghV9B08s+dN9G17Q@mail.gmail.com> <D2172685-A0C0-4CF5-9B1F-4BD07B5DCC63@ericsson.com> <06e2790a-def0-c28a-fc0d-f3a897d5bc49@bobbriscoe.net> <b6018434-3c31-37ae-fa18-9bebf5522574@gmx.at> <8470a4fd-2815-0bf9-534a-ef9928f1f43f@bobbriscoe.net> <CADVnQymXTpuQHykr9AWRhuJo_WgtDQNUnZjpGAtweMbM7Ede3A@mail.gmail.com> <f5b5b8c5-fb52-8e17-615a-e4e302f1f010@gmx.at>
In-Reply-To: <f5b5b8c5-fb52-8e17-615a-e4e302f1f010@gmx.at>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:34:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAK044S6x5z=XcVdPyPC9uF9-tKpy7C4Js6oPuEEKtvKttMw-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004f9880597652ce0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/MawqyPQkB-jztyF3DLh3rbYIRxA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-09: AccECN option: why not EE1B first?
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:34:33 -0000

If it’s just binary info, can we allocate a bit for it?
-
Yoshi


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:05 AM Scheffenegger, Richard <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
wrote:

> I too like two different option numbers more than initial magic numbers
> - we aren't yet that constrained in the tcp options registry to not go
> that route...
>
> Richard
>
>
> Am 14.11.2019 um 19:00 schrieb Neal Cardwell:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:47 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> wrote:
> >> On 14/11/2019 10:06, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:
> >>> Perhaps placing a different inital value in the first counter would
> >>> implicitly signal this better?
> >> I'll think about this - we can discuss at the hackathon.
> >> Another possibility would be to assign two option kind values for two
> >> different option orders - I think I prefer this.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The folks from IPPM will not be all too happy with the semantics of
> >>> field values depening on some (possibly missed by passive observation)
> >>> initial value though...
> >> Well, true. But I don't think that's a show-stopper. Two option kind
> >> values would address this.
> >
> > Two option kind values sounds like a nice solution, IMHO. Clear,
> > simple, and fast.
> >
> > best,
> > neal
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email