Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce-00.txt

Jonathan Morton <> Sun, 21 July 2019 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B6D1201DA; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jvj2OizrXVQ5; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ABCE120199; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r6so31955623qtt.0; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=h37YrM4UXxZ/u+hm5HlNIVf6omEmKBf0ylz1+dXbkC4=; b=UQqA2Sbx3gZpcC0ApYzxMI4egasjPuyMd/D4IHYpJDOBeKA8ul0P8b/qx3ekaIeE43 MZukkdLaUKWgbnvTeO0IzzKN+fBhd2tuI269KVt/Bqv17TOFQMiAdEHsOmDraMQPMm5Y zuCzVBsHfBKEiyxtamHMSrtiXuyov7IAI4zTO79hmffxuVbQAyky8CWGihkhejzsfmCh iRmu5nanGc34X4mHEibdd3wWAdZAMH/5CG2HJvGzMZ7+btDhBldtc5cWMvQHqmMkTsUe EbfkaMvkpDvs7n05kJyYOVyueHjFTLSkjmlsnGjbypXaeWviYc7rNy5WzZLQ/RXWDDAr VWBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=h37YrM4UXxZ/u+hm5HlNIVf6omEmKBf0ylz1+dXbkC4=; b=fr7pmQzEXVLw1e4/m+nY9CMnE6e0b8PwDPdq0oi7VeFvzFSZamcD1aYURs1N4GQ6YC se43iT5cXbJAnRs6W/7jmcC3GIRBx5ujumq3M+0v9Og6dpYG8Be9OGBDeYEmz4d8JgOO 5onm2omCSaICstLxvs3iVfKEi/aL4AxK/KU2FVve+iE9Alxl8lIwBFwtkfqLLKjnI8oU +f9VU3O9AGe3aRLJoV9RP7MzXp0sb6kbJ7lPSWQqERfF6WwZzrnYbzF2XBybNi3cPSwb yg8ipsMaD+Czqu28PHQRUrH2J9n4fcNL560+Z/q+cN0+7XxfA7pcQ66kwe8p4q/RN8Gk qNTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5QzTppNSCeF9r4bNXqPPoYI5S4bTDHyauEjx0djwrI3YSFmm/ rhMnoKvqFclOBXUwh4KUTh4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwawL3xlzZvWs4TVV9B+M9V0HYtVz5L/PEcsQP2eWLHtWi07ZVn4mEXdeBZK1a+xAn+yjdMMA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1e8a:: with SMTP id c10mr44787987qtm.45.1563730342259; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:c6f:1909:360d:46a2? ([2001:67c:370:128:c6f:1909:360d:46a2]) by with ESMTPSA id r189sm17694387qkc.60.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:32:15 -0400
Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 17:32:31 -0000

> On 21 Jul, 2019, at 1:27 pm, wrote:
> I could be wrong, but it appears to me that this draft does not merely not make use of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn, it's incompatible with it. Is this the case? Of course SCE is a competitor to L4S, but the accurate-ecn draft also asserts that there are other uses for accurate-ecn besides L4S (DCTCP and ConEx) . It would be useful if you (the TCPSCE authors ) could state your position on those other uses, for the record. 

AccECN goes through a negotiation on the SYN and SYN-ACK phases before its use of NS/CWR/ECE bits is changed.  This is very important.  SCE's revised use of the NS bit comes into play only after that negotiation has established (to an AccECN-aware endpoint) that Classic ECN is in use.  This is actually similar to the old Nonce Sum spec, which the AccECN draft still seems to believe is current.

> Also, presumably it is incorrect that "There are no IANA considerations", since IANA would need to change the NS bit.

This may be true, and is another thing I'll work on with Rod when we have a moment.

 - Jonathan Morton