Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Thanks for writing up this draft. I have some comments on the contents

Intended status : Standards track. I interpret this that it means that this document becomes standards track. 
Are there any ideas around the intended status for a document such as briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, will it be experimental first or ?

Section 4.2 : " "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, routers treat
      the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints as equivalent, and senders are
      free to use either the ECT(0) or the ECT(1) codepoint to indicate
      ECT, on a packet-by-packet basis.""
In some way I find it to contradict the proposed statement in  section 3 " Protocols and senders that only require a single ECT codepoint  SHOULD use ECT(0)."
I see here a risk that the statement in 4.2 can delay deployment of L4S capability based on the use of ECT(1) in the networks ?

Section 5 : I see the main problem with RFC6679 (in this context) in the use of the nonce. Don't however see any major problem to use feedback also for an L4S capable sender/receiver using ECT(1). 
For that purpose it may be better to rewrite :
      Use of ECT(1) and random ECT values is discouraged, as that may
      expose RTP to differences in network treatment of ECT(1) and
      ECT(0), e.g., as proposed in [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].
To :
      Use of ECT values is discouraged, as that may
      expose RTP to differences in network treatment of ECT(1) and
      ECT(0), e.g., as proposed in [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].

Further ... quote " In support of Alternative Backoff experimentation ...". I would say that this applies to L4S as well. As an example, SCReAM (RMCAT WG congestion control candidate) is easily modified to support L4S, and the RFC6679 feedback can be used with SCReAM. For that reason it may be better to rephrase it like 
" In support of Alternative Backoff experimentation and experiments based on [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id]....." or something similar

Regards
/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: den 1 oktober 2016 00:42
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Black, David <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-
> 00.txt
> 
> This is the process-oriented draft on ECN experimentation that I promised at
> the TSVWG
> meeting in Berlin.   Comments are welcome, but please keep the process
> focus in mind -
> the intent is to leave documentation of the actual ECN changes and rationale
> to the referenced drafts that document the ECN experiments.
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 6:24 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
>         Title           : Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
>         Author          : David Black
> 	Filename        : draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 10
> 	Date            : 2016-09-30
> 
> Abstract:
>    Multiple protocol experiments have been proposed that involve changes
>    to Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as specified in RFC 3168.
>    This memo summarizes the proposed areas of experimentation to provide
>    an overview to the Internet community and updates RFC 3168, a
>    Proposed Standard RFC, to allow the experiments to proceed without
>    requiring a standards process exception for each Experimental RFC to
>    update RFC 3168.  This memo also makes related updates to the ECN
>    specification for RTP in RFC 6679 for the same reason.  Each
>    experiment is still required to be documented in an Experimental RFC.
>    This memo also records the conclusion of the ECN Nonce experiment in
>    RFC 3540, obsoletes RFC 3540 and reclassifies it as Historic.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>