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

"Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Sat, 02 November 2019 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
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 02E3D1200B5; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 2wdnO7nVPWlW; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8039B1200CD; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id xA2NQJkX093619; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id xA2NQIYm093618; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <201911022326.xA2NQIYm093618@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <1468777263.2671021.1563730029999@mail.yahoo.com>
To: "alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk" <alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
CC: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, "\"Rodney W. Grimes\"" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "\"tcpm@ietf.org\"" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "\"tsvwg@ietf.org\"" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/XDhr71ko2CtbT0kfl82h9mbMD-Q>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce-00.txt
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 23:26:30 -0000

Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org
Alex,
With respect to draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and
draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce compatibility:
  When accurate ecn (AccECN) fails to negotiate an AccECN capable session
  it falls back to RFC3168 conformance, leaving a state that is fully
  compatible with SCE, hence they are compatible.

  I am currently working on a revision to draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce and
  hopefully can cover this "compatible" situation in the draft itself.

With respect to "There are no IANA considerations":
  You are correct, reworking that in several respects, hope to remove
  references to the NS bit for most parts and simply state that this
  draft for "IANA considerations" is requesting a bit, with the former
  NS bit prefered.

Regards,
Rod

>  Rod, Jonathan,
> ?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. 
> 
> Also, presumably it is incorrect that "There are no IANA considerations", since IANA would need to change the NS bit.
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> 
> Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>; wrote:
> > > Rod,
> > > 
> > > This draft appears to be focused on obtaining a TCP header bit for SCE.
> > 
> > Yes, that is correct.
> > 
> > > As an alternative to this single-bit proposal, please take a look at draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn/) and consider how that functionality might (or might not) be usable with SCE. 
> > 
> > I specifically did not do what Accurate Ecn attempts as that requires
> > a TCP option negotiation at connection establishment to negotiate the
> > overloading of other TCP header bits.? SCE only needs 1 new bit, and
> > does not alter the behavior of any current bits.
> > 
> > This proposal (TCPSCE) does not in any way effect the current use of
> > any of the other bits, and use of the NS bit should be fully backwards
> > compatible and ignored by pre SCE implementations and does not require
> > a TCP option negotiation.
> > 
> > I have to get additional data but have been lead to understand that
> > adding a tcp option and doing that negotiation is going to cause a
> > great deal of pain in the ability to deploy accurate ecn as it is
> > currently designed due to middle box inspection and handling.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rod
> > 
> > > Thanks, --David
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org