[tcpm] bit length for byte counter fields in accurate ecn
Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 09:06 UTC
Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.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 0F9D33A0C27 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 josKRWoFe2Eb for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (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 2CB933A0C26 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com with SMTP id l25so3321144vso.6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E9Nd3tmVz3g++SPxMqhcvUEX4QK07zkxTm1sryy7V9c=; b=Njfqdb1i2OMprb2EuEmZ2jvCbI3L1xbPIuIW9tMSyH3uknrtZkr/81517/lCHXJsqV Ab6UX5VDWbsXXdijwLqbvodt7vO7yeWiX3YFGPGoaBAdfwrFMV+Nip5ntfpbpEQ3lh9q e3O+mDzZiogEcYrOasJZhzBXqANmsgMY+HDF0ra6LntsgKkqa06PYdmR+DSIx1AYmVSO egako24iEouoXHRDSn6xNi68JJmUMaUrIrSCFrTUZQO9JsuSSLv4p4IHN6U5FVBLr6GT 4pZ4lxiKYMWEvScBC0Um/QOOhL6INtrvTi9vZg48W3Edo/1CbhJd2cM5CGEAtAfisCu3 Xivw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=E9Nd3tmVz3g++SPxMqhcvUEX4QK07zkxTm1sryy7V9c=; b=J/Mm7KEvhAhkto4iadWJ0kAzSPEHCJwR2dJTmshIvP+h4ItnAxcUPSo1PheFs5MUb6 NK7wmIQ7J/4XBRtX/mfBKaa6nGe5rqDUBFzVYQ8lzfynvGfIJOM1oQyjvti64vv5Xs9+ dYABaAt6pluFp+gi26AXlf0DxcGC5X7icje7E+OjoWzJase4C/9t1xm01c/m+XMXGUhC tUBwC1QOzhpFMF8j8RVUS4GVagN4hJGXPgsIKk2Ju/oaHzjam7bcd3e9WKTlqK3WTlET GUqIRysu5fEhP+8qZS0zc8vlHTNTeKlcPtax0yzrEbKiXs2ZX5QTXSuOkLm9Ua0J6iXR r+NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaigaKW0S5hALrcHvmoVbZ7Yj72fSnxojspAcDoWeqsGVyynT/W wzeD6U/bfffuC6Et9rkvGmITclHSiPAn/QsewDSZ3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJeueXhAPdLZbGmwCszrKXZn+ffWXmR7eB0lrhVXHHXCeZ9t53FZlCNa4sVZmA4o5Hkq2YI5dL04dwoPUKHCaU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3d2:: with SMTP id n18mr2109996vsq.157.1588237592554; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:06:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAK044T0FYoGOrvk7Vx33Hq0nSjndG3OhCXvfo4H326uQ-Lm+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085f15005a47e61d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/YS3aPDrdrBInjNviNkBzgn-pgvg>
Subject: [tcpm] bit length for byte counter fields in accurate 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: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:06:37 -0000
Hi, I am still a bit wondering about the length of the field for the byte counter. In my understanding, the length of the counter is (at least) 32 bits and encoded into 24 bits field. So, I am thinking that reducing the bit size doesn't affect accuracy directly while the potential risks for miscalculation will be increased. Is this incorrect? Thanks, -- Yoshi
- [tcpm] bit length for byte counter fields in accu… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] bit length for byte counter fields in … Bob Briscoe