IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Seeking feedback for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Fri, 08 November 2019 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.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 1356A12009E for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:22:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.335
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heistp.net
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 IEJhDlZX3Eox for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com (mail-wm1-x344.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) (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 D4D1E12002E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id q70so5212745wme.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=57WqV2m5+XFgV0/Hp017uitaLN+uhynMJyzZOyrVDQY=; b=IrVomZeQ0jtWqxXXZCQoPBbGLXudJm9496XcItr6jn+bpA4rfEzN5lXwC9yS27W1Il Iaif/HPvWmUHtxT+CB2Tk3bqba5Xbl9fWscVB9W8b+C1cYUuvHfVm1IJnrouf1c6CUxI uISHCgmAilim7Tayzr9lnYkXvi5L414U2bG2mVv9Mb8Opa370f0he0w2DCW/3x2A95Nl Slis+22YgbGthug5Yd3htOsmhHczZKp47DCEsZ8yXXH06NC4RGbDA3bgTZr1yAylm76e aOsIF3rvfYPnMY5fWx8S1mpC6ccvK2LxpRDKiLGXNAuRFMfAdHPtGDNl8Wn+AbXU5m/v SxJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=57WqV2m5+XFgV0/Hp017uitaLN+uhynMJyzZOyrVDQY=; b=N0/9faKTUUaGnpe1kKKHvkWN2YsddflM7PccCNqgoxcnFSIFKsAAJ52UrRu74QhHgM PuZHc7XX1Uq+5bQcnTcw+MRhVSUhkxvzD6ZNL2JgXvhCzeN3aur5K2008jRea9BBMD3r tshcFlLmGsrsG/tRhAmbu96x5WZmNpONrm2SmyZ2rYoX0qKGPOnqFsRNMB2XktL9zdwJ 2AmUIuOe2/ZsfSFOUGM49QHSVXWLaFYZpJFuaqRey+OkYwE5D13RPFkBpUrwZSBv5Q3u DKUHajvwjm4MlEKxrUiGOSqta/HwM4kmsjrp1/GcQLsdaFEfR1LdHznnpFk+iENNeWCd 2fGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsq0pvVrGDLcU5Tgi/qtJm0zV7AzFp7c2QjV4e9GERkcSYpOGN CLCWfuAhoj3WiZmGMvygDHrzkg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqydTNQQ9oyIqu5GaLY25yQFFibfxOyADgeak7i1d8e/wG2MsNyXfy1wo5SbyNwNthI1xbDsnQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d8:: with SMTP id 207mr6808666wma.65.1573201372197; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.6.144.160] ([212.140.138.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n23sm4471972wmc.18.2019.11.08.00.22.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
In-Reply-To: <201911072222.xA7MMYXb017371@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:22:51 +0000
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E82ED460-49E3-48F3-9018-6ED155B47BFD@heistp.net>
References: <201911072222.xA7MMYXb017371@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
To: nsd.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/XR-KpcM_US5-peqlcDg9ch43mXo>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Seeking feedback for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:22:55 -0000

Hi,

Regarding points A1 and B overall, would it be possible to add to the AccECN draft some language such that when it falls back to RFC 3168 ECN, the NS bit is still available for other experiments? That way the bit could still be used by SCE, even if AccECN becomes a proposed standard.

> From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:04:38 -0800
> 
> Hi,
> draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn have been
> discussed for a while.
> tcpm chairs are now thinking that they are getting matured and becoming
> ready for WGLC .
> However, we also think there are several points to be clarified beforehand.
> 
> In order to proceed the current situation, we would like to ask the
> community to give some feedback on the following points.
> We will highly appreciate your inputs.
> 
> A: Allocating bit 7 for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
>  The draft requests the allocation for bit 7 in TCP header (ex NS bit)
> for this proposal.
>  However, the intended status of the draft is experimental, which may not
> be well aligned with the description in RFC2780.
> 
> The chairs would like to check the following points.
>     A1: If we can have a consensus to allocate bit 7 for this
> experimental draft. Or, if there is any other ways to allow the allocation
> (e.g. using other documents)
>     A2: if we decide to allocate the bit, what we should do when the
> experiment fails.
> 
> B: Overlaps with some congestion experienced proposals
>  It seems that some congestion experienced proposals
> (draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce
> and draft-morton-tsvwg-sce) have similarities with these drafts.
> 
>  The chairs would like to check the following points for this.
>    B1: The two proposals won't conflict each other. We can discuss and
> proceed these proposals separately without any potential risks.
>    B2: it seems that SCE and L4S may have some conflicts, but this will
> not affect the discussions for AccECN and ECN++.
>    B3: if we allocate the bit 7 for AccECN, it is still allowed for SCE
> proposals to use the bit or it will be prohibited.
> 
>  BTW, just in case. please avoid initiating technical discussions and try
> to discuss how to proceed the drafts in this thread.
> --
> Yoshi on behalf of tcpm chairs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email