Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt
"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Sat, 29 October 2016 00:55 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Original-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1129512951D; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.from=David.Black@dell.com header.d=dell.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=GJaj+S19; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=bbOu4bod
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 DUGfJ7iBp2fm; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.149.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0AA128E18; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: s=smtpout; d=dell.com; c=simple; q=dns; h=Received:From:Cc:Received:Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature: X-DKIM:Received:Received:Received:To:Subject:Thread-Topic: Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Accept-Language:Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:x-originating-ip:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: X-Sentrion-Hostname:X-RSA-Classifications; b=LZdS90fE+BTyk8/f0eoTuY9LNI1GeuRb7QaUnNxiT/nc+hjv8hR2Pklm u0ugc+LzWv6Xhhr0zpsE1Q0spGbu5rrreznr1sLzW/EAqYuAWJGrLTVhG IcS7nvHUbj3Tj/AZOJlXLg42yPyRBcrmtBqZ3YFJ0cFtG/Bop7Vgrb9hT Q=;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1477702547; x=1509238547; h=from:cc:to:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2ghkFxgMFH1pQfp7aPPjJkv7dp/VRcei2lqfpKoeQus=; b=GJaj+S19Ox+wCE6hjrTcvMXg+KvyiO5/Q6pZYAP9tcBLbVP1Iei/tdbt lGA33xBJn9efhyclNXBW5lzXCqIn8beCdoKiMHYYkhK+Ho/fdjPoNEwJq waN6jMo6HrvQtQ6K0PmTPQAxuo/mhu2R1/Q9IOtj7cn2rpBynGqWB3ch7 Y=;
Received: from esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.98]) by esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Oct 2016 19:55:46 -0500
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com ([168.159.213.141]) by esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Oct 2016 06:55:44 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.33]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u9T0teiq006774 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:55:43 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com u9T0teiq006774
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1477702544; bh=28QaWZk1YGNXtYIDsH9kkFFw9Fw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=bbOu4bodM6lRhC2y+TD6A50qka63rcglFiLJxMKK4ZeXIgqm/ndenbMP8b7pvesqX mjj1eVq9BY6scinegB5ykQkdHDusIxnH/F6yx1m9TioPxYJNbfGsXumq16DZYXmOWz tec9lDOs8OXWPhWzTFEt1zfu7GGlbFHHhuPx+8Pk=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com u9T0teiq006774
Received: from mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.22]) by maildlpprd01.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:55:22 -0400
Received: from MXHUB302.corp.emc.com (MXHUB302.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.28]) by mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u9T0tMCo003923 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:55:22 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB302.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.28]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:55:21 -0400
To: Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>, "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>, "tcpPrague@ietf.org" <tcpPrague@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSJmYvj8ED7chUmECqekIdzFz9XaCrZRqggAzRJoCABnbmwA==
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:55:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F700048@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <147527426837.20369.878763602331124041.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F6B60ED@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <DB4PR07MB3482CDD877C9870E0CC7093C2C70@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F6C4DE2@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <DB4PR07MB3480F87F3FDA3FDB86D8431C2C60@DB4PR07MB348.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F6C766C@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <BF6B00CC65FD2D45A326E74492B2C19FB775C0FF@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F6DB8B7@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <379e8b8a-734e-04ee-c3cb-f1c428b21e38@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <379e8b8a-734e-04ee-c3cb-f1c428b21e38@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd04.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public, GIS Solicitation
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpprague/djJh10wFnuKXOmsLrLH_QYoTmTE>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpprague@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To coordinate implementation and standardisation of TCP Prague across platforms. TCP Prague will be an evolution of DCTCP designed to live alongside other TCP variants and derivatives." <tcpprague.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpprague/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpprague@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:55:50 -0000
Bob, Thanks for this follow-up. [1] Should ECT(1) be Reserved now? At this point, I think this issue ought to go to the Seoul TSVWG meeting, so the -02 version, will contain the current RFC 3168 "SHOULD use" for ECT(0), and indicate that whether that ought to become a "MUST use" for ECT(0) is an open issue. [2] Relationship of L4S to Alternate Backoff Thanks for the L4S draft reference, there will be text in the -02 of the ECN experimentation draft on this. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:in@bobbriscoe.net] > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 1:57 PM > To: Black, David; De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE); Ingemar Johansson S; > tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; tcpPrague@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn- > experimentation-00.txt > > David, > > A couple of responses inline... > > On 16/10/16 19:21, Black, David wrote: > > [1] > > > >> I agree with Ingemar that the text: > >> "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." > >> Should better become: > >> "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, routers treat > >> the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints as equivalent, and senders should > >> use only the ECT(0) codepoint to indicate ECT." > >> There is no reason anymore to use ECT(1) by senders, unless an Experimental > >> RFC specifies differently. > > Ok. > > > > [... snip...] > > > >> I think it is clearer to explicitly state that only ECT(0) should be used. > > That's already been done in -00, via section 3 quoting this stronger text > > from RFC 3168: > > > > Protocols and senders that only require a single ECT codepoint > > SHOULD use ECT(0). > > > > That should suffice. > [BB] If we're going to rely on that sentence, we need to add your > exception for experimental RFCs to it. Then it becomes: > > "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, when the ECN > nonce has not already been implemented, protocols and senders MUST > solely use ECT(0)." > > The SHOULD has to turn into a MUST, because all the possible exceptions > that the original SHOULD allowed are now listed explicitly in the > sentence, leaving no other exceptions that you want to allow. > > > > > [2] > > > >> I think we need to clarify if the text in this section is intended only > >> for responses in the sender "without" a compensating change in the network > >> between drop and CE marks, or also "with" a compensation. In the first case > >> we should also specify this, and in the second case we just can also refer > >> to the L4S draft (where we assume a DCTCP or TCP-Prague response). > > Which L4S draft should be referenced? I believe I agree in general with the > > above concern, but I need to know which L4S draft should be referenced on > > the "with" approach in order to write the actual text for the ECN > Experimentation > > draft. > [BB] draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-01 has the text you need. > It attempts to specify both the difference in network behaviour and > sender behaviour that is associated with ECT(1). > > Specifically, our current attempt to specify the transport behaviour is in: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-01#section-2.3 > > > > Cheers > > > > Bob > > > > Thanks, --David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE) [mailto:koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell- > >> labs.com] > >> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 5:59 PM > >> To: Black, David; Ingemar Johansson S; tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; > >> tcpPrague@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn- > experimentation- > >> 00.txt > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Thanks David, I think this draft is useful to support further L4S > >> specifications. > >> > >> Some excerpts and comments from the mails below: > >> > >> I agree with Ingemar that the text: > >> "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." > >> Should better become: > >> "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, routers treat > >> the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints as equivalent, and senders should > >> use only the ECT(0) codepoint to indicate ECT." > >> There is no reason anymore to use ECT(1) by senders, unless an Experimental > >> RFC specifies differently. > >> > >>> I've revised my working version of the -01 draft to remove the second > >>> sentence as part of this proposed update to RFC 3168. > >> I think it is clearer to explicitly state that only ECT(0) should be used. > >> > >>> My understanding is that L4S requires both ECT(0) and ECT(1), as it couples > >>> treatments of traffic marked with those codepoints. For that reason, the > >>> statement in section 3 (which is quoted from RFC 3168) does not apply to > L4S. > >> L4S is not changing the meaning of non-ECT or ECT(0) packets. > >> It still assumes a response by the sender equal as a response to drop. The > >> coupling is only towards ECT(1). Routers will more frequently mark ECT(1) > >> packets to compensate the more aggressive behavior of L4S. ECT(1) marking > >> is steered by the non-ECT drop and ECT(0) marking probability such that > >> flow rates become equal independent of (non-)ECT(0/1). > >> > >>> The handling of ECT(0) and non-ECT packets goes outside the L4S definition > >> Correct. Nothing changes for L4S. > >> > >>> [2] Section 2 - L4S and description of Alternative Backoff. If one of the > >>> folks directly involved in L4S would like to suggest a draft to cite that > >>> describes the L4S backoff for the low latency/higher-CE-marking-probability > >>> functionality > >> Technically speaking L4S has an alternative response to a CE marked packet, > >> but only to a packet that was sender-marked as ECT(1) and when the network > >> marks packets more frequently by the routers. > >> > >> I think we need to clarify if the text in this section is intended only > >> for responses in the sender "without" a compensating change in the network > >> between drop and CE marks, or also "with" a compensation. In the first case > >> we should also specify this, and in the second case we just can also refer > >> to the L4S draft (where we assume a DCTCP or TCP-Prague response). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Koen. > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: tcpPrague [mailto:tcpprague-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Black, > >>> David > >>> Sent: vrijdag 7 oktober 2016 18:29 > >>> To: Ingemar Johansson S; tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; > >>> tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>> Cc: Black, David > >>> Subject: Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn- > >>> experimentation-00.txt > >>> > >>> Ingemar, > >>> > >>> Summarizing: > >>> > >>> [1] Section 4.2 - "free to use" text. The full quote from RFC 3168 is: > >>> > >>> "Routers treat the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints as equivalent. > >>> Senders are free to use either the ECT(0) > >>> or the ECT(1) codepoint to indicate ECT, on a packet-by-packet > >>> basis." > >>> > >>> I've revised my working version of the -01 draft to remove the second > >>> sentence as part of this proposed update to RFC 3168. That's both simpler > >>> and clearer than what's in the posted -00. In addition, doing this obviates > >>> the need to say anything in this section about the possible L4S > >>> relationships between the ECT(0) and ECT(1) queues. > >>> > >>> [2] Section 2 - L4S and description of Alternative Backoff. If one of the > >>> folks directly involved in L4S would like to suggest a draft to cite that > >>> describes the L4S backoff for the low latency/higher-CE-marking-probability > >>> functionality, I'm happy to cite that as an additional example of > >>> Alternative Backoff. > >>> > >>> Thanks, --David > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ingemar Johansson S [mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com] > >>>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 2:38 AM > >>>> To: Black, David; tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>>> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S > >>>> Subject: RE: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn- > >>> experimentation- > >>>> 00.txt > >>>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> Comments inline [IJ] > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Black, David [mailto:David.Black@dell.com] > >>>>> Sent: den 7 oktober 2016 02:28 > >>>>> To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>; > >>>>> tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>>>> Cc: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> > >>>>> Subject: RE: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn- > >>>>> experimentation-00.txt > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Ingemar, > >>>>> > >>>>> David> Inline > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, --David > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Ingemar Johansson S [mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:32 AM > >>>>>> To: Black, David; tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; > >>>>>> tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>>>>> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: > >>>>>> draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation- > >>>>>> 00.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for writing up this draft. I have some comments on the contents > >>>>> Thanks for carefully reading the draft. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 ? > >>>>> Possibly - I don' t know. The ecn-experimentation draft is not intended > >>> to > >>>>> settle that question for the l4s-id draft or any of the other drafts > >>> involved in > >>>>> the described areas of experimentation. > >>>>> > >>>>> I wrote the ecn-experimentation draft to allow the experiments to be > >>>>> specified in Experimental RFCs without each experiment also needing a > >>>>> companion Standards > >>>>> Track RFC just to open up space for the experiment. If any of the > >>>>> experiments > >>>>> pan out so well that they deserve to be immediately written up as a > >>>>> Standards Track RFC without bothering with an Experimental RFC, then > >>> that > >>>>> would be wonderful, IMHO. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 ? > >>>>> My understanding is that L4S requires both ECT(0) and ECT(1), as it > >>> couples > >>>>> treatments of traffic marked with those codepoints. For that reason, > >>> the > >>>>> statement in section 3 (which is quoted from RFC 3168) does not apply to > >>> L4S. > >>>> [IJ] It is perhaps here I see things differently. > >>>> My interpretation is that L4S is that senders mark packets with some > >>> special > >>>> codepoint (let's call it ECT(1) ) and network queues detect this and send > >>> the > >>>> packets to a dedicated queue which marks these packets to ECN-CE at a > very > >>> low > >>>> queue delay. A special case may be that senders are networks are 100% L4S > >>> (Data > >>>> centers), this means that only the code point ECT(1) is in use. > >>>> The handling of ECT(0) and not-ECT packets goes outside the L4S definition > >>> and > >>>> definitely requires dualQ solution and classification. > >>>> It is quite possible that my interpretation is flawed. > >>>> > >>>>> OTOH, I see your concern, namely that "free to use" in the RFC 3168 text > >>>>> quoted in 4.2 is somewhat at odds with "SHOULD use ECT(0)" in the RFC > >>> 3168 > >>>>> text quoted in section 3. This is a concern with RFC 3168 itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Would it help for this ecn-experimentation draft to update RFC 3168 by > >>>>> removing the words "and senders are free to use either the ECT(0) or the > >>>>> ECT(1) codepoint to indicate ECT, on a packet-by-packet basis." ? > >>>> [IJ] Yes, it probably solves things, mind though that reason why I brought > >>> this is > >>>> up is that I may interpret the definition of L4S differently. > >>>> > >>>>>> 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]. > >>>>> Good point - I agree. I would insert "random" after "Use of" in the > >>> "To:" text. > >>>>> I'll make that change in my working copy that will become -01. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>> I'd prefer to do something different. I think L4S is an example of > >>> both the > >>>>> Alternative > >>>>> Backoff and ECT Differences areas of experimentation, and hence I'd > >>> suggest > >>>>> citing an L4S draft in the description of the Alternative Backoff > >>> experiment > >>>>> scope in Section 2. Which L4S draft would you suggest? > >>>> [IJ] Good question.. Not sure what is required here?. Our proprietary > >>> SCReAM > >>>> research code has support for L4S, one possibility is to update the SCReAM > >>> draft > >>>> with a description of this functionality. An example was shown at the L4S > >>> BoF > >>>> (page 6-7 in https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-l4s- > >>> 2.pdf ) > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> /Ingemar > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Black, David [mailto:David.Black@dell.com] > >>>>>>> Sent: den 1 oktober 2016 00:42 > >>>>>>> To: tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org; tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>>>>>> Cc: Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> > >>>>>>> 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:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > >>>>>>> Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 6:24 PM > >>>>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > >>>>>>> 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-experimentati > >>>>>>> on/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> tcpPrague mailing list > >>> tcpPrague@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague > > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________ > __ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn… Black, David
- Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-bla… John Leslie
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-bla… Black, David
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… Black, David
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… Black, David
- Re: [tcpPrague] I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg-ecn… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE)
- Re: [tcpPrague] FW: I-D Action: draft-black-tsvwg… Black, David
- Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-bla… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] FW: I-D Action: draft-bla… Black, David