[tsvwg] DCTCP and draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation ?
Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 09:01 UTC
Return-Path: <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DF6129851 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tieto.com
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 V-d1K3ENaHT5 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595E912984F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id m5so447576238ioe.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 01:01:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tieto.com; s=google; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ULlONz2MUIrIMxQmSHyf4EjTVy3qs0aRCthVocCBkGg=; b=3+kwHGLNWRd3Ec3DGhIkyHqq2CepuusXCkcoLKikcaDUjDuG4aEyUNmUL46U+LH2La 7v/NRjDodY7KiFwDbUSflyecqb58658pzJrVjIJB4ACN92MJuGuXz/WsGKAKAGjm+4NU dM42e9xPdMmx76Se4ZJ7VQTsscbR0XnxCbL8E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ULlONz2MUIrIMxQmSHyf4EjTVy3qs0aRCthVocCBkGg=; b=WPKznYixyB5z+CxQ8G8HAr0Vfoy7ymrS/dDx7Je/hZSrZdnm6jLPK/qxXnkLFcUaOD PeuTQ72a3JTV7LUKwsEUJFXudzl8AvIxXzs/YdzJcZytvfO7CTTJzgwCnDQ9cmcGt0/c 9+1av36pOSHFbWjtXtBfmJ+Q65cZtSg+qIMkuw6Y3T2eUnT/NeAeRRuXsf8XyU5uWg5j yttKSPIM+AO8MoRjcGNCjYeuki7dXmO3iO7uCYQnDitoSv8duMp+0taypdgpsASZJwlT jtlXUbYFZ4SqJ9CNnv97M9HVRGA5EJD42UlG1+bXQLf6rEzuqFp3zxck6JXVmYm88a3B YkUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03J+6chRUCnObX+bUsxvZ5RnRSgYGFgnnop9xwN6PwKXRN/gr+JCENmT7O8PmEqRn5LCuXD2rwsGWPg2hLAmzBURRd8t8hc633Pb01HuZUn9VJvV5ctL0Pyieh7hLhNQk3l
X-Received: by 10.107.59.87 with SMTP id i84mr44693756ioa.204.1480928491288; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 01:01:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen <karen.nielsen@tieto.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdJO1ioNLUmk0y5KTGaYO1zuvkZf8g==
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:01:29 +0100
Message-ID: <f7d9e0c8f47940f490d6e829cf983deb@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org, draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation@ietf.org, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-DomainID: tieto.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/3eK6svoAEoAyFD57CG96g8CYZl0>
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] DCTCP and draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation ?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:01:34 -0000
Hi, This very likely has been discussed length and I just missed it (Sorry). Why is dctcp, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-03, not mentioned in this draft ? Even if it does not fall within the 4ls experiments (not sure about the answer to this) then it might be useful to add a few lines explaining the status of DCTCP in this respect ? Something else entirely then are mechanisms like DCQCN, not specified by IETF, but relying generally on ECN markings in UDP transport, though not following neither the classical nor the l4s approach. Such mechanisms as is, whether they use ECT(0) or ECT(1), remain to be treated as alians (or plainly as not compliant with standards) at this time in stage. Correct ? BR, Karen
- [tsvwg] DCTCP and draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimen… Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen
- Re: [tsvwg] DCTCP and draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-exper… Black, David