Re: [tcpm] Why draft-gomez-tcpm-ack-rate-request?

Bob Briscoe <> Wed, 23 March 2022 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32353A17BB for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-Ky2bUK56JX for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AABA3A17B5 for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ISjw5YkfJvgJZQZdu1d8nyCsvadBFrqj2bRYT5NlJ0E=; b=sZDCYNHIC6RUhQJuDm9VrJNpVP UPnZ3FKMSM2sKiPgNZ3TfQqBmdM168NF6DPUqDFlwW1Px8JkmaQtwtkYi/cofR3aojOuNT9gjInJz aOUZGsaw+ZXZpJn3NyTQnhkdrwoiih9Dqip7TXo2aESuU7B4SFKHUHT4r9mjwNYMS8AcGfOsI2IV8 Njl8DCVBSKr6Q8Qg/T7ZKA6s2K4NTo99F7DwSQq15VwVvHqLs9HeyUqPjlVVzMIBEMD6OHNdP93TW RANj3EMiaTNwGyRbWquVr99HhDlR6kRVkFCnVq6p5qP4BtLjWlq2P18SyPnmQu9g58KoWG6j31i43 /+yiY67w==;
Received: from ([]:54588 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1nX3h8-00018D-5M; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:18:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:18:38 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Jonathan Morton <>, Gorry Fairhurst <>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Why draft-gomez-tcpm-ack-rate-request?
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: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:18:48 -0000


On 23/03/2022 13:41, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 23 Mar, 2022, at 3:25 pm, Gorry Fairhurst <> wrote:
>> I would also note that ARR offers an alternative signalling method (to AccECN) for effectuating Generalised ECN, as applied to pure acks in particular.  I think ARR is conceptually and mechanically simpler for implementers than AccECN is.

[BB] If I read between the lines, I believe you are categorizing the 
combination of AccECN and generalized-ecn (ECN++) as just one very 
narrow application of them: ACK congestion control. Although the 
combination of AccECN and ECN++ makes ACK-CC possible, that wasn't one 
of the original motivations for either.*

Whatever, if we run with this narrow focus, TARR wouldn't be enough to 
deploy ACK CC. It solely gives the control signal, not the measurement 
in the other direction that would be needed to drive that control.

To be clear, I believe TARR is useful, I'm just saying it's not 
sufficient on its own for ACK CC, which seems to be what you are 
referring to here.


* Primary motivations:
     AccECN: robust feedback of the extent of ECN marking, not just its 
existence within one round trip, which is all RFC3168 feedback allows.
     ECN++: allowing TCP control packets and retransmissions to benefit 
from being ECN-capable.

>>   - Jonathan Morton
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list

Bob Briscoe