Re: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 targeting informational status
"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 11 March 2019 21:56 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 8DA821311E3; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 Ar4zONpHJJMl; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8A2131249; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59A225A14; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:56:22 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1552341382; bh=oPTLodDM5h5MptoE8iMz/eaxtBkiDJU1fHD4wMTzHF4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=q95obJz+7H9n85c2CkH599grQqkXqsBWn1U+rV42UachwKegRvbu4vyCPP1NMp8b5 QXPkdPWfYhOQBN0ZR1ur/y1HdzRkGpNojLoXmeS2W+KzLTnA5kMF1ceqfL8G8Anrf2 JAu0nZUc6mHNplpY/mz9sPd4Wzvr2kADCNDRoYD0=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DfwjptPikBGi; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:56:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.183]) by rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::f977:d5e6:6b09:56ac%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:56:21 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org" <draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Working group acceptance of draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 targeting informational status
Thread-Index: AQHU1G616iHOJHkpoEO6XOB3g3fkFaYG8qpw
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:56:19 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D256A45@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D24EEA4@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D24EEA4@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.29.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ig47Blwn7GX52-Aa0-aafC1oYjQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 targeting informational status
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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:56:37 -0000
Disclaimer: Chair hat off I have read draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06. I believe that this document is a good starting point for a new TCPM working group item targeting an informational RFC. Below are some initial comments that are hopefully not difficult to sort out in a follow-up version. Comments: - The abstract and/or the introduction could better explain the purpose of the document and why it is informational. For instance, a sentence such as "this document provides informational guidance to TCP implementers..." or the like could be useful. - While this may be somewhat obvious to most of us, the document could also mention more explicitly that the content does not affect TCP interoperability. - Section 2 may not be required given that the document does not use RFC 2119 language, except in a quote from RFC 7413 and in the appendix that will be removed prior to publication. If section 2 stays in the document, it should be reworded according to RFC 8174. - In Section 6, I find the sentence and references "RTT values are updated by a more complicated mechanism [RFC1644][Ja86]" somewhat confusing. First, I don't know what [Ja86] actually refers to; without a public archive such a reference has only very limited value to (younger) readers. That also applies to a later use of [Ja86]. Second, RFC 1644 is now obsolete and I think T/TCP belongs better into Appendix A. I wonder if this section could be reworded with references to RFC 6298? The same comment may also apply to later discussions of the RTT. Editorial nits: - The abstract may be more useful on the first page - Section 8: "TCP is sometimes used in situations where packets of the same host-pair always take the same path." This sentence seems broken, no? - Section 8: "some Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are known to use proprietary UDP encapsulation methods". I don't understand why "proprietary" is used in this context; actually I even don't even understand why "UDP encapsulation" matters. Doesn't this paragraph apply to all tunnel encaps? - Section 9: "One such problem is determining the associated prior outgoing packet for an incoming packet, to infer RTT from the exchange." Well, as a non-native speaker, I had to read this sentence at least three times to understand what is probably meant by that. Thanks Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 11:48 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 > targeting informational status > > Hi all, > > The document draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis has been discussed quite a bit in > TCPM. One question has been the status (BCP or INFO). The version > draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 explicitly targets informational status and > plans to obsolete RFC 2140 (which is informational, too). > > The intention of this e-mail is to confirm that draft-touch-tcpm- > 2140bis-06 should be adopted as informational TCPM working group item, > i.e., that a new item should be added to the TCPM charter: > > Nov. 2019 Submit document on TCP Control Block Interdependence to > the IESG for publication as Informational RFC > > The adoption call runs on the TCPM mailing list until March 22. Please > let us know if you support adoption of the document, or if there are > any concerns. > > Best regards > > Michael > (TCPM co-chair) > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:52 PM > To: tcpm@ietf.org > Subject: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm- > 2140bis-06.txt > > FYI - > This version: > - obsoletes 2140 > - says so in the abstract and intro > - includes a "changes from 2140" section summarizing the > differences > Note that the earlier versions did cite 2140, but did not as directly > indicate that this is intended as its replacement. > Joe > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06.txt > Date: > Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:49:25 -0800 > From: > internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: > Safiqul Islam <safiquli@ifi.uio.no>, Michael Welzl > <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Joe Touch > <touch@strayalpha.com> > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06.txt > has been successfully submitted by Joe Touch and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis > Revision: 06 > Title: TCP Control Block Interdependence > Document date: 2019-01-04 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 22 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis- > 06.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-touch-tcpm- > 2140bis > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-touch-tcpm-2140bis-06 > > Abstract: > This memo updates and replaces RFC 2140's description of > interdependent TCP control blocks, in which part of the TCP state is > shared among similar concurrent or consecutive connections. TCP > state includes a combination of parameters, such as connection > state, current round-trip time estimates, congestion control > information, and process information. Most of this state is > maintained on a per-connection basis in the TCP Control Block (TCB), > but implementations can (and do) share certain TCB information > across connections to the same host. Such sharing is intended to > improve overall transient transport performance, while maintaining > backward-compatibility with existing implementations. The sharing > described herein is limited to only the TCB initialization and so > has no effect on the long-term behavior of TCP after a connection > has been established. > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touch-tc… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touc… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touc… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] Working group acceptance of draft-touc… Joe Touch