Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce-00.txt

Jonathan Morton <> Mon, 22 July 2019 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00102120288; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESTgVpCHYsiY; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B09C120276; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r6so34567102qtt.0; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PlaBMUc3W+mJozhtpbGqQlqqbiZZLl/lsMOo7BseYcw=; b=LaRZ9ClelykbkIi1Byy2gL16bA4RfoWifCb/hDSF10GuHxk8vppw67y7cJ+7flnFc8 OGGMYlubA7AsZm8AvbbKoh980KfKJAuMMvUbVzkpFoZqOC6pvMEvQsJ2lFr3zyicMXrI 3qdLGpV+ExdQc1vvZWdwmNsRNtW0TtHYBdQOB6Aqx3D16J/+2yqn2rJn7Z6B5APamx1b 7RA9uvK2u5VvZLQl2/mgwivuinfxq4tNH8UWG6nYGU+AqCv2aoY0RLsVDlgenVaVb9Ma HPbeYAnKLDqgrXd4opqaJUf+NeMNBlT+ZVBfWKHJ5mXazI5eM1gn1E9v103rpcMezvcp 2gUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=PlaBMUc3W+mJozhtpbGqQlqqbiZZLl/lsMOo7BseYcw=; b=YAFucCg6/GBcuWhV/WM6C/LEelTTKnyi286xYjWHVMxxyK40Qbpj94NECmxgT7puoE SwjvKH1vSqJbeuG4D0nMb8jl9RNklwEV4JG9l2oB4OV9dvMvDkmdeFSD7/dRzUOXxEbV sCJvWIlRQhLc5oETthvzpzhO1+TJlyn3faYdzelU19VbHr7kYrcln/CnjwnT5NA1R+3e vM/2N2KQC96kxJoz7ZkoGjuRwBAI595qdCsnqxUPwpqsa0FbywSDGfsSIWmSpBZ6/egy FNeF1ovrdAmzjc1V/vYrVi46m5TcBf0wElLvm9UFjUEwyeRZb1nYYYTGACIYgsaFDHvs DPLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVzyeq0dmzxv1vDKcK0NmIhSxVl6EwkVMHNvq0xspD3ZdcBAoVF uHzkRi58GEoZr/PMey1W+ZM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6mTdDfmKRZNvwvU61KpUR1zEHu0/QfNUj0DJy5cOfT6xN3SrluD5PCIrQ4V8jGJ1hNj3Y3g==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fa8b:: with SMTP id o11mr51210599qvn.6.1563806921551; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f20sm16099116qkh.15.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:48:39 -0400
Cc: "" <>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <a85d38ba-98ac-e43e-7610-658f4d03e0> <> <> <> <>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:48:44 -0000

> On 21 Jul, 2019, at 9:01 pm, Scharf, Michael <> wrote:
> Please be aware that there is also draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn-04, which in the current version has a dependency on draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn for certain cases.
> Just to state the obvious: These documents are work in progress in TCPM and TCPM always welcomes feedback.

I just skimmed through it to remind myself of certain details.  Most of it only applies once AccECN has completed negotiation, so the same arguments apply.

I do however note that SYN is described as the most important packet to protect with ECN, and this is of course sent before AccECN negotiation has completed.  Further, if the SYN-ACK then indicates that AccECN is *not* supported by the remote end - which would be the case for both an SCE endpoint and any conventional one - a conservative IW of 1 segment SHOULD be conservatively selected, with no modification for the increasingly common IW10 case (the default for current versions of Linux).  This incurs a flow completion time delay of approximately 3 RTTs, which could be perceptible to end users.

A less extreme response may be justified here, given that the strongest signal that may have been missed by the lack of ECN feedback is a CE mark, for which the most conservative TCP response is to halve the cwnd.  So for an IW4 sender, the IW should be reduced to 2, and for an IW10 sender, the IW should be reduced to 5.  This would reduce the flow completion penalty to 1 RTT when encountering a non-AccECN endpoint.

 - Jonathan Morton