IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: Confirmation for Auto-Post of I-D draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv]

Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> Tue, 17 December 2013 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ycheng@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAA01AE00E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:40:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 CCl8lAI6hdmG for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571A61ADF73 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x13so8662342ief.20 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:40:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=jfY5eP+DSX3yvdbyaUD7GSF0toJ+76kT436m5YHtPeE=; b=X1EWdCw2fC0CZN6YOuRV3k0wEzi2kuY1H7COVXDVzovwbLkyVeShnRid/FjE7IlFrl JZXDrGDFwVIRExjh060c4y2NnyYRYYweHx2vfgAatXeffXO0i4cJg0V+Zu7aADJng2NN I70OHeQ+PHh7LDA98cBhlTR94mE2xydBmFOxkFK3p2+tAfuqN0VaB61grcqsUyv5hLmb OvAMwCXujpKRh3KaGAOReD0pFoPAc1DZmUGN+sdnWV7rNkgI31O6DrlIXCgETrNV1rMU WAaBYsr5NL0MfzsjpOnUss2HcOL15C1prdZgd2Wgae67lhmazXSlfpMk3Ot7/0Z5LOND PPIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jfY5eP+DSX3yvdbyaUD7GSF0toJ+76kT436m5YHtPeE=; b=ZK75IAHqpbuLRIYzkLsKM5a9yq06ipdJ0VUOHfn+w5VdkLtJWz/RlT20rXTzUQwhsS bdL74wsYTOhpef70LOTmvxqwN9BQ/fTi9wOL9rk3FlCkVFTLNldwezg/vz45oRWiuRFG U/mpkkjz70L6icRtXDLp635WiOuJmtO77pD6dZls3QYmAdl9hiU86dfpFrYixuypBXcC j0aWVcBk993ZBu2l2tgU/Vdo6xAT6LzwIflqBrQy5fCwOQsDi7XfDUsPO5nE9nNeaUoS vgQm4E2ZqsPy2kVRg0ImUMJKG54l4UWeovZBwtGEskAB9XDsGEN/c1PiXA1AxStx5yxt /J2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlh0jp8d+LzWFa4BC3l82BK+2xUNJydp+rvkQRln3TntDQqAAMe/s9LL2gVMQMGyojvitkN8TUlHuI+DnzW+c28+X+LrKIlIhttpG7JA3EZUkHffpOeNwwYAa6NSiKTd6iFdnm/+uGBjIwAp0bniBSpNESiwfUVlfgRP3sRHzEbX6PuGwn6FZEf/5gJR98rltEYBa3W
X-Received: by 10.50.143.10 with SMTP id sa10mr4041663igb.8.1387298431955; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:40:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.170.3 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:39:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52B07778.7090504@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <8f78ebda09f5e658aa0cd61a38019a88.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAK6E8=fkeCeT1O-=+nQd2kzXQXuBUF1vrMJDLbpoR088nsJ0eA@mail.gmail.com> <c3b91ff8425bfa6def617736c7b1384d.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAK6E8=cuA3y4OR_6=aN4d=KspXDuRtKu4z1TBHuxEJdKd6sKUw@mail.gmail.com> <52B07778.7090504@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:39:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK6E8=d_Ftqc=Q6WAtaBsiTUN60DubFM-m6WKWUZB+7p1QxsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Fwd: Confirmation for Auto-Post of I-D draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv]
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:40:35 -0000

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 17/12/2013 15:58, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:28 AM,  <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:28 PM,  <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We've submitted a revised ID for new-cwv.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 2 main updates:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The draft now firmly recommends the use of pacing. We will provide
>>>>> performance data on pacing for the next IETF.
>>>>>
>>>>> - The draft has a small amendment to the algorithm to ensure that the
>>>>> NVP
>>>>> does not inhibit cwnd growth when a sender fully consumes the cwnd.
>>>>> There
>>>>> was previously a corner case in the measurement of pipeACK when a flow
>>>>> started or resumed that could result making newCWV more conservative
>>>>> than
>>>>> standard TCP (e.g. for a bulk flow). We think the correction is within
>>>>> the
>>>>> original spirit of new CWV.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'd welcome feedback on these or any other aspects.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the new section on burst mitigation but why standard track?
>>>>
>>> The previous discussions on STD track centres on whether we would include
>>> require a burst mitigation section, so this is now a good question.
>>>
>>>> The change has pro-found impact on congestion control as it changes
>>>> how cwnd increases per ACK and after idle. There are a lot to
>>>> experiment before we know this works well in real networks.
>>>>
>>> Are you referring to the new ack-mitigation section - requiring pacing
>>> after idle?
>>
>> I am referring to the main changes proposed in the draft, not just
>> pacing after idle.
>>
> OK, so this algorithm hasn't changed much for a couple of IETFs.
>
> Do you have concerns about relaxing the Standard behaviour (collapsing to IW
> after one RTO), and that letting apps maintain a higher cwnd has dangers?
>
> Or do you think the algorithm may keep to high a cwnd when non-validated?
>
> Or is it something else?
something else.

I thought standard means people have used it, found it working, and
like how it works. May I am wrong.

>
> - I'm happy to document/discuss (potential) concerns.
>
>
>>>
>>> Gorry
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> the new CWV authors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF datatracker draft submission service has received your draft
>>>>> draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv-04, and requires a
>>>>> confirmation step in order to be able to complete the posting of
>>>>> the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the posting:
>>>>> Confirmation URL:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/56402/confirm/c575579feb585d58d82af80a319918630e8d0529/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>          The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>          through the draft submission service
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email