Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim:SuggestedFragmentation/Reassemblytext

Bob Briscoe <> Tue, 23 March 2021 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211683A18EF; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.433
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.433 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pna73_mYVLis; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:58:22 -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 6A8AF3A18EB; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=OW6Uzrd0kuPvxhDwX4wDixbPKiN0e61opM5JfH6R2Rk=; b=VEJU+zjM5iV9JzBP4F7MbbvXV U/4W+HGlnTDq4PJVp0LuBV1H8FD6spVri45UUInWENM4nOQEnUVVwXkzO/EdLbWRAbJCqiesvguta nv/ZpCClZ0ErItNDkFDycn5QXgDtP/GzP4IfdTsW+Es8/PYw2HVfT/Y+mRg6saAuqqHyNOtCDD9rt LwsxLdB1IaZpXrtp3tTbI54nmcspgPZdhFKqsgbo77yqC3uj/omVleC2QQUTgxERwKRXDToZio3yz QL4A3ReBClIuCfmjoeXHA1vVdJKBhvoRH9YawLRN8489jRWJqE3yLX51W007v21EzwTJcJGrMmm+z s3/I188YA==;
Received: from ([]:52186 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <>) id 1lOpyd-0003oh-7g; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:58:19 +0000
To: "Black, David" <>, Jonathan Morton <>
Cc: Markku Kojo <>, Joe Touch <>, Markku Kojo <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:58:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------28389C2BB6489876A3E3AAD8"
Content-Language: en-GB
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: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim:SuggestedFragmentation/Reassemblytext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:58:27 -0000


I'll reply to your response on the shim text here, and start a new 
thread for the encap draft, to keep this from growing too long...

On 22/03/2021 22:00, Black, David wrote:
> First, the good news - the reassembly text in Section 5 of rfc6040update-shim
> draft looks good:
>     Section 5.3 of [RFC3168] defines the process that a tunnel egress
>     follows to reassemble sets of outer fragments
>     [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into packets.
>     During reassembly of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels], if
>     the ECN fields of the outer headers being reassembled into a single
>     packet consist of a mixture of Not-ECT and other ECN codepoints, the
>     packet MUST be discarded.
>     If there is mix of ECT(0) and ECT(1) fragments, then the reassembled
>     packet MUST be set to either ECT(0) or ECT(1).  In this case,
>     reassembly SHOULD take into account that the RFC series has so far
>     ensured that ECT(0) and ECT(1) can either be considered equivalent,
>     or they can provide 2 levels of congestion severity, where the
>     ranking of severity from highest to lowest is CE, ECT(1), ECT(0)
>     [RFC6040].
> I would slightly rephrase the first paragraph as follows:
>     Section 5.3 of [RFC3168] specifies ECN requirements for tunnel egress
>     reassembly of sets of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into IP packets
>     when at least one of the fragments is CE-marked.  If none of the fragments
>     in a set to be reassembled is CE-marked, then the following two additional
>     requirements apply:

[BB] I'm afraid that's incorrect. This requirements from RFC3168 covers 
cases other than those with at least one CE fragment:

    "Reassembly of
    a fragmented packet MUST NOT change the ECN codepoint when all of the
    fragments carry the same codepoint."

To achieve what you want, I believe i just need to replace the first 
para with the following, then bullet paras 2 & 3:

    Section 5.3 of [RFC3168] specifies ECN requirements for reassembly of
    sets of outer fragments [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] into packets.  The
    following two additional requirements apply at a tunnel egress:

Also, we agreed that we would not update RFC3168 here. This section 
starts by saying it updates RFC6040, so I've kept it to just that (my 
draft-13 text was wrong in this respect too). I've moved the words 
" a tunnel egress" so they confine the scope of this update to a 
tunnel egress, rather than incorrectly redefining the scope of RFC3168 
(which is about reassembly anywhere, not just " a tunnel egress:")

> and then itemize the second and third paragraphs (e.g., number them 1. and 2.).
> The rationale for this rephrasing is that Section 5.3 of RFC 3168 does not specify
> a process, but rather imposes requirements on what is allowed.  I also believe
> that this text the bulk of what's needed to address the reassembly comment
> that's been holding up these drafts.
> ---------------------------------
See new thread for the rest about ecn-encap...


Bob Briscoe