Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-17
Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 21 March 2022 08:35 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 34A083A0E8E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 NZzh7fXCNLrA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (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 0CE7E3A18DF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id r10so19627314wrp.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rZISm+/ZD6lfoUNLzWAgYXoTAv8PSHS7M+f1i2Qw0BQ=; b=j/avvopSyjzXx9LtAtqizHyci/dK6aAdTWTjQhJxz/gXKK7A19+sXv7RB8EpSpc0TI GxWv4iRCbyl4NoIkg14EBdPbwsvNkB+z/J3+MsMgeoqTI35bO7TrPC1g28NnDIRWdru2 VSwJSuxvL0phtvjox4CfCxkKSnC7gx8tMiTdBBTugAHY+6oCpx05v2dBOFb1RKljPMbm EuTw8oTAzOOyB0JHMSYv5HhgKQmAdhRs/DqNjX4apDoMA2uD/5QAFE/iBqUBNxAZjVzW 12IjULSUn/w4vkQ6fwyS53TdFQWwX0+qUQMja3MwqUAwQxVdtVEdKwyikDp95CDOHyvL lkdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rZISm+/ZD6lfoUNLzWAgYXoTAv8PSHS7M+f1i2Qw0BQ=; b=Acxe1eUamutQTrWmBbZJdMBEumdDbH6cP8zTinHQRqIbm4mqy76DN6Ht9H6GKPZNM+ V27xwbCQHjBAaS5AoaLrnoaOnaAtY++LFAgOjAAt4a3Be50G2S+29NQWGMNETuCkk6nS axH4ApmR/Un0oCk5XHHfLEGj+ZVLPMTLZGNN2/O2kS3NBHbpthUWWG9e9NUtx+zei+On 9qkkNojGwO5AoMVR4sfdAgP++4xiCzStH3xiKvPT89sxerUWMTnMkogV4D1sam8hVVt4 JlcLDCq5PE3pyUlZv98E884UO6AdrR7whS4GG1gayop01OjUz5G/XT7zIBP8gtoL/lft fiEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530R2Z9VmkBrJWwwa6in14+sbAHS8IOnC+9koO6GI7yH7NJAszPT +czoDy1OveaoqJ/Ugx/B2k3u5WiA7EqSKgbHG1xaz53M
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBWRKE2iq/ErUhiuMYC7ANc+KJqfGn8TIK7yFzTZsHz9WEyaYrJuZLeLq7VNNg8IYqCurHe0mETSY20xWDFL8=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fb47:0:b0:1ed:9f2c:492e with SMTP id c7-20020adffb47000000b001ed9f2c492emr17696788wrs.196.1647851748644; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164669506897.29288.5626108129531513971@ietfa.amsl.com> <2603fe69-5d17-f23b-53cb-b69690673f7d@bobbriscoe.net> <CAAK044TktHx7pKmv1F=BbFaqdfAdjpE_YT=FJf_yfi1AeFHRAg@mail.gmail.com> <04b9bfd1-0f13-2b7c-3442-bfb414246a50@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <04b9bfd1-0f13-2b7c-3442-bfb414246a50@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 01:35:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAK044SFgjAV0O5aqAYP-R93oqKv_SmptV0SYp0sewTLDV3ESg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001edc2a05dab6628d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/TvCcrqAQCW2QyR-fMyrvVNsxCac>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-17
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: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:35:56 -0000
Hi Richard, Bob, Thanks for the responses. On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 6:08 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > Yoshi, > > On 20/03/2022 09:50, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > - 'that acknowledges new data' -> 'if any byte counter has incremented > since the last ACK' {*includes new markings on retransmssions*} > > Does this mean when you retransmit a packet, the acc option in the packet > should be updated to contain the latest info? > If we do this, wouldn't it be hard for the receivers to tell which packet > contains the most recent info when there's reordering? > > > [BB] Yes and No (I don't think so, but perhaps I misunderstand your > question). > > For first question: see end of §3.2, which has been there since the start > of AccECN: > > Whenever a host feeds back the value of any counter, it MUST report > the most recent value, no matter whether it is in a pure ACK, an ACK > with new payload data or a retransmission. Therefore the feedback > carried on a retransmitted packet is unlikely to be the same as the > feedback on the original packet. > > For second question, when you say "the receiver" > * if you mean the Data Receiver (i.e. the sender of the feedback), it > doesn't need to know. It just increments its counters in whatever order > markings arrive, whether on retransmissions or not, and feeds back the > latest counter. > * if you mean the Data Sender, see A.1 or A.2.1 where the example > algorithms at the Data Sender check whether a packet is superseded (based > on ackno, sack & timestamps if available) before using the feedback. > > Does that answer your questions? > Yes. Thanks for the explanation. I've thought about the case where there's large re-ordering, But, given that accecn option has 24bits fields as Rechard pointed out, I think the possibility of the risk would be pretty low. Thanks, -- Yoshi >
- [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-1… internet-drafts
- [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-accu… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] Summary of updates in draft-ietf-tcpm-… Yoshifumi Nishida