IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.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 B672B1B2C82 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 lFQBifHge3DG for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx143.netapp.com (mx143.netapp.com [216.240.21.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BD441B2C81 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,671,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="38686120"
Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx143-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2015 05:43:33 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX05-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:43:33 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX05-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::29f7:3e3f:78c5:a0bc%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:43:33 -0700
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03
Thread-Index: AdB82dvas/DQQ7w2TuSWSxKiXj5XLgFnxocg
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:43:33 +0000
Message-ID: <9758e066d7c542c2a99cbf366df7cc7d@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939E2@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939E2@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/jD1e3iNU18zbaZ-zs_5qrFXcTMY>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:44:38 -0000

Hi,

I think this draft, if the intention as I understood it so far, is to documents a specific, defined and deployed use case, would warrant informational status; Personally (disclaimer - as one of the co-authors of AccECN-reqs and the AccECN draft) I'm not very happy with the mangling of the ECN feedback mechanism described herein, but I do like the modulated CC reaction, which I believe has merit to develop further.

I tend to agree with Gorry, that the proper expertise to review the draft would be in TCPM, but it probably should be submitted as AD sponsored informational document. We have precedent for this - in TSVWG, the rtmfp spec was dealt with similarily (disclaimer, I served as doc shepard for that). A standards-track document should resolve the ECN signaling issue (ie. by requiring AccECN on both ends) at the very least.

Best regards,
 Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
> (Michael)
> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 10:54
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> During IETF 89 [1] and on the list there has been a discussion about WG
> adoption of draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp [2]. The understanding of the chairs
> is that there is no clear consensus up to now.
> 
> In order to move forward, the chairs seek for community guidance regarding
> the following options to handle this draft:
> 
> a) Adopt in TCPM as Informational
> 
> b) Adopt in TCPM as Experimental
> 
> c) Do not adopt in TCPM now
> 
> Option c) does not prevent publication outside TCPM, such as publication
> by another working group (e.g., TSVWG), publication on Independent Stream,
> etc.
> 
> The TCPM chairs believe that adoption of alternative congestion control
> algorithms in TCPM should be backed by a strong consensus. Please also
> review [3] and [4] regarding the difference between Experimental and
> Informational.
> 
> Please let us know any feedback on a potential WG acceptance of draft-
> bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03 until May 8.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-tcpm
> 
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-03
> 
> [3] RFC 2026, Section 4.2.1, 4.2.2
> 
> [4] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email