IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 F0F8C120AEC for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:01:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 x2mHQbk6wOYq for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x330.google.com (mail-ot1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::330]) (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 3710E120AE7 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x330.google.com with SMTP id f10so5653048oto.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:01:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gg9jLy1hDCcu4tmIafKPMRaS3ZZey6Q9QZ2IbKHWYu8=; b=s0mKfeatqrFkCxZfU5Eh9WNyYKo1Y2VeYvWtKgYVSMNh/TdahzUQo0WEjhmQ7r0pIb wfCr6QLR4rPWNyKmGWglww+n++7I6FKayu8Gdf77ssXBTrRNc0WvehePO1hU3Xtn/Ovm H8z7bGdvwGHzn34MuessxXUV2fSWac1H7+3iHyidoWaJ/Ra7idVDt06Rwf+ukZaFpprV sJVWZCq5SRcupAaxedwlfq+6+gUQjXh/E1mADRV1r4o+gZV7QQk9DrtPvSqwpLskxm/m EW3v5wpn8+L0879B6xFjjjkZUWKIohHamT5BvyIsw2H7bHIRvxNYfBZuvY6QcwvDIEf8 DjHA==
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=gg9jLy1hDCcu4tmIafKPMRaS3ZZey6Q9QZ2IbKHWYu8=; b=kpbF/Wy0EgnzI8NEK2ZzXCmqpb67aePdNOgUWxZa36QVxGDwfjue+ff+7NJ+hBax06 ewMNX9/JEkG4lC+rgAzRFSwGwwZQb4VmR6yeXVuK+87orZ/4xW/LWlJFiBppWhrSN9bT DY6F5mm4xBZraDerQHUuuHAHIC1djIHc/8tOtGiJcZUFXPqS30CvUn3jFGzMAkMW942w WCmtVMZF/TTI8ci32VDwiGqjDG7JTqcD7VF5AK6+hnvzH6cc/PvRGeqKqiwMpAeeEe+P a9D2MvXJuNuvE05r4+M8thlhsGR/j0sqfOMoe8as6bFxzQgjLt5f+GwSjjDstnk3zv4h Pz0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW93DmbqAd9reSw840iTQajjy9Xr3RFnU0W0wA6qhEEnR1hZyiZ 023jv18v/Jq1f96YFUYxuK6Obv6GBi9AlErW7Rj+sA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKAB0jUXw+rVNOOwESJugf8vfXXi45Suha2J38ywGnUbwTfV7HkFFdbQeTz2KTtjH7ErGoRZ8KPKAgM2bDYXI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:164d:: with SMTP id h13mr8548791otr.371.1573754476016; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:01:16 -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>
In-Reply-To: <8470a4fd-2815-0bf9-534a-ef9928f1f43f@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:00:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQymXTpuQHykr9AWRhuJo_WgtDQNUnZjpGAtweMbM7Ede3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/W3amXg0t4vDHZsV77Rkh24NFRVs>
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:01:22 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email