[tsvwg] BCP 89, RFC 9599 on Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Sat, 31 August 2024 03:42 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (unknown [167.172.21.234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF50BC14F74E; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 20:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 461) id 594C37FA63; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 20:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240831034207.594C37FA63@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 20:42:07 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: OQHLCOOSH5EO5CRIVQ6APJTE6SQWGGLN
X-Message-ID-Hash: OQHLCOOSH5EO5CRIVQ6APJTE6SQWGGLN
X-MailFrom: wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] BCP 89, RFC 9599 on Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/1cGbk4iG4bmYtXSq4mDg0atDKVM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 89
RFC 9599
Title: Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification
to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
Author: B. Briscoe,
J. Kaippallimalil
Status: Best Current Practice
Stream: IETF
Date: August 2024
Mailbox: ietf@bobbriscoe.net,
kjohn@futurewei.com
Pages: 28
Updates: RFC 3819
See Also: BCP 89
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-22.txt
URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9599
DOI: 10.17487/RFC9599
The purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
notification in any lower-layer or tunnelling protocol that
encapsulates IP. The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
propagate consistently from lower-layer protocols into IP. Then, the
IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
transport layer (L4). Specifications that follow these guidelines,
whether produced by the IETF or other standards bodies, should
assure interworking among IP-layer and lower-layer congestion
notification mechanisms. This document is included in BCP 89 and
updates the single paragraph of advice to subnetwork designers about
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in Section 13 of RFC 3819 by
replacing it with a reference to this document.
This document is a product of the Transport and Services Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
BCP: This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.
The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC