Re: [tcpm] Reminder: WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-26

[[e-mail]]

> On Nov 6, 2023, at 11:42, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Markku,
> 
> Can you please elaborate again why DSACK needs to be implemented for a SACK-enabled session, in order to detect and differentiate true loss (the core aspect of SACK itself) vs. spurious retransmissions (which are to be avoided, e.g. by not counting identical ACKs with different ACE values against the duplicate ACK threshold)?
> 
> 
> A worked example with / without DSACK and under what circumstances there may be a dramatic impact, would be indeed very helpful.
> 
> Thank you very much!
I would like to see concrete proposals from Markku how to fix the issues Markku has first.
That might help in understanding the issues in DSACK/RACK-TLP/F-RTO he is trying to
describe.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> Am 06.11.2023 um 11:09 schrieb Markku Kojo:
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> catching up…
>> 
>> I am afraid that the crucial piece not addressed is that this approach assumes that by enabling SACK would also enable DSACK in full which is not the case. Therefore, the suggested rule in ECN++ does not result in correct operation for RACK-TLP and F-RTO. It requires correct impöementation at both ends.
>> 
>> I’ve already tried to explain this earlier but try to come up with a detailed list clarifying the actions needed at each end later today.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> /Markku
>> 
>> 
>>> [e-mail] kirjoitti 27.10.2023 kello 19.35:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 21, 2023, at 19:51, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> this e-mail is a gentle reminder for the 2nd working group last call for
>>>> draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-26.
>>>> 
>>>> The WGLC runs until Friday, September 22nd 2023.
>>>> 
>>>> Please send any comments, including indications to support this document,
>>>> to the TCMP mailing list by then.
>>>> 
>>>> In particular, if you have made comments during the first WGLC, indicate whether
>>>> the comments have been addressed or not.
>>>> 
>>>> The ID is available at
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn-26.html
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> based on the feedback, the WG chairs have declared consensus on this document.
>>> We do understand that not all all feedback provided was addressed in a way
>>> expected by the person giving the feedback.
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm