Re: [tcpm] Detailed review of AccECN rev -04

G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sun, 15 July 2018 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 68E68130ECF for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 MUnwohUp8GDH for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09572130ECD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from G-MacBook.local (unknown [72.142.123.242]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4A641B001CF; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 15:31:53 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5B4B5AD8.2060209@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 10:31:52 -0400
From: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
CC: =?UTF-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, tcpm@ietf.org
References: <5A128116.9080609@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <0C9DF549-632F-4FAC-A561-3C3679552C6E@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <b14c00f7-993f-b63e-9061-b95786856d19@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6e96aa71-afc8-4006-819b-9d8466d1d2e1@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <6e96aa71-afc8-4006-819b-9d8466d1d2e1@bobbriscoe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/TmsooNaliC5CyoPDEI5C7QXIUVc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Detailed review of AccECN rev -04
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 14:32:05 -0000

OK, it makes sense and I agree. I think that's a key difference with the 
ABE ID. That does change RFC3168, by specifying a different  mechanism 
to respond to feedback, which we expect will deploy as the default for 
ECT(0).

Gorry

On 14/07/2018, 12:00, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Gorry, Mirja,
>
>
> While reviewing conversations on the list for including in our slides 
> in Montreal, I thought again about the conversation below from March...
>
> On 13/03/18 16:49, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>>> A future standards-track document based on the AccECN experimental 
>>>> RFC could update RFC3168.
>>>
>>> No, I don’t it would update RFC3168. It does not change anything in 
>>> that RFC. It also specified an additional meachismen (which we hope 
>>> will deploy as the default). The only thing we change is the use of 
>>> the NS bit in the SYN but that was previously unused; with or 
>>> without ECN Nonce.
>>>
>> OK that makes sense. 
>
> Although nothing in AccECN updates RFC3168, the goal was not to fork 
> the wire protocol, but instead to eventually provide a generic wire 
> protocol that could either feed back to a host behaving like RFC3168 
> (one response per RTT) or behaving with an updated behaviour (e.g. L4S).
>
> So, some time in the future we might want to work out whether / how to 
> update RFC3168 with a new standards track feedback protocol.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/