Re: [tcpm] WGLC comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-04

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 16 March 2017 08:52 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 9172A127076; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 mFH7nAAoiUbe; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8052512704B; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D01F1B017DA; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:49:58 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <58CA5242.4050802@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:52:18 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
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: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
CC: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp@ietf.org>
References: <58C66BB3.1000003@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CY4PR21MB027775A417785976A70C6B11B6260@CY4PR21MB0277.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <0B589CBD-EE0D-46CD-88EC-9569ABECDED0@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <0B589CBD-EE0D-46CD-88EC-9569ABECDED0@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/WWaT-Rqx5sYVKbWdM2dJeCz9GQ0>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-04
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Mar 2017 08:52:57 -0000

On 16/03/2017, 08:26, Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't read the draft since long ago (one of the first versions), but I just read this dialogue and I have only one comment, so I'm removing everything else:
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> 3.4.  Handling of SYN, SYN-ACK, RST Packets
>>
>>    " The switching fabric can drop TCP packets that do not have the ECT
>>     set in the IP header.  If SYN and SYN-ACK packets for DCTCP
>>     connections do not have ECT set, they will be dropped with high
>>     probability.  For DCTCP connections, the sender SHOULD set ECT for
>>     SYN, SYN-ACK and RST packets."
>>
>> - I'd take the position that the fabric can and will drop any packets under overload, as per RFC7567. I'd prefer to explicitly state that to avoid a misconception that ECT eliminates all drop (rather than nearly all drops).
>>
>>
>>>> Change this to : " If SYN and SYN-ACK packets for DCTCP connections do not have ECT set in the IP header, they will likely be dropped by the switching fabric under load. For DCTCP connections, the sender SHOULD set ECT for SYN, SYN-ACK and RST packets."
> To me, "will likely be dropped by the switching fabric under load" doesn't sound quite right - as if they would most probably be dropped whenever there is any form of load (no matter how much). I would suggest to change this to "...they are more likely to be dropped by the switching fabric under load."
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
I agree with Michael, but also I don't see it is correct for transport 
protocolsto need a very specific network behaviour. The choice of which 
packets are dropped is a design choice of the AQM: If we were to see 
FQ-Codel or FQ-PIE (for exmaple) deployed, then a common behaviour would 
be to separately queue new flows (even if non-ECT) - Switch design can 
change - I therefore think we should not be assuming a specific switch 
behaviour, but also I do think the ID does not need to go there ....  
because I suspect the clause could perhaps be written differently...

- I'd suggest to change to:
"SYN and SYN-ACK packets for DCTCP connections set the ECT(0) codepoint 
in the IP header, this ensures they receive the same treatment as other 
DCTP packets when forwarded by a switching fabric under load. For DCTCP 
connections, the sender SHOULD set ECT for SYN, SYN-ACK and RST packets."

Gorry