[Tsvwg] IETF 55 TSVWG Minutes - draft
Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com> Fri, 29 November 2002 08:36 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24270 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:36:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAT8cwn17340 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:38:58 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAT8YYv16659; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:34:34 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAT8Wov16581 for <tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:32:50 -0500
Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24204 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 03:29:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=psg.com ident=mankin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 18HgZe-0003ER-00; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:32:34 -0800
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Cc: sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com, sob@harvard.edu, mankin@psg.com
Reply-To: mankin@psg.com
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:32:34 -0800
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Message-Id: <E18HgZe-0003ER-00@psg.com>
Subject: [Tsvwg] IETF 55 TSVWG Minutes - draft
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
[Send corrections/amendments to the chairs/Spencer asap] Minutes for Transport Area Working Group (TSVWG) Co-Chairs: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com> Minutes: Spencer Dawkins <sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com> Mailing Lists: General Discussion:tsvwg@ietf.org To Subscribe: tsvwg-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe email_address Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/tsvwg/ - or - www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/tsvwg/current/maillist.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda Transport Area Roundup - Scott and Allison - 30 mins SACK/DSACK - Mark Allman - 15 mins Reading: draft-allman-tcp-sack-13.txt draft-blanton-dsack-use-02.txt Out-of-path signaling - 15 mins Towards a BOF in San Francisco, TBA TCP MIB extension - Matt Mathis - 15 mins Issues: Any major functional area uncovered? Comment now! Reading: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-02.txt Eifel - 10 mins - Reiner Ludwig Issue: Publish as Experimental? Reading: draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-eifel-response-01.txt F-RTO - 10 mins - Pasi Sarolahti Reading: draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-tcp-frto-02.txt Framing topics - Discussion by authors - 25 mins Reading: draft-culley-iwarp-mpa-01.txt draft-williams-iwarp-ift-00.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allison and Scott did the Transport Area roundup slides at http://www.psg.com/~mankin/TSV55.html DCCP is the newest group, DIFFSERV has been in FIN/WAIT for a year or so waiting on its PIB, and ENUM is almost finished (except for privacy). IEPREP is an interesting challenge. IPPM is well behaved, and stands out against similar groups in other standards bodies. Not making value judgments seems to help! IPS is doing its protocol and MIB work at the same time (a first in IETF?) IPTEL is starting to work on IPTEL-related URLs. MALLOC is waiting on its MIB; MEGACO has been interesting but not pretty to watch. MIDCOM is a little chancy - need to decide what's reasonable. MMUSIC is doing SDP additions (and has been for a while, but it's been an orderly process), and has been useful to cellular. NFSV4 is doing stuff (with 12 people - if you get your work done you can get to the bar sooner). NSIS is doing the next RSVP and is just rechartering - it may be doing MIDCOM follow-on work, and it may take on the defense of RSVP extensions wrt other standards bodies. PILC is almost finished (as soon as the snake finishes digesting the last, big pig Internet-Draft). PWE3 is in transport, and why not? We ARE interested in congestion control. Their requirements and framework documents are almost last-callable. RDDP is digesting individual submissions for acceptance as working group docs. RMT isn't just reliable and isn't just multicast, but its products are being used (by the Post Office!), and their massive non-realtime spec went to Experimental. ROHC compresses headers and is beloved of cellular (big specs, small headers). RSERPOOL is moving past requirements (diligently). SEAMOBY lost one of its jobs (but is still looking at heterogeneous wireless links), and its architecture is being looked at. SIGTRAN is still producing documents. SIP has produced 20 documents this year and they're being used by ITU-T and 3GPP. We've discovered that SIP telephony is really IETF protocol space (security, congestion), and have produced the largest protocol spec ever in the IETF, and defined how to do SIP extensions only in IETF. SIPPING is doing extensions that don't change the SIP protocol. SPEECHSC is voice recognition, and SPIRITS is doing its* call waiting for the Internet, and TSVWG is doing lots of work, too - see below for details. Whew! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Status on using SACK and D-SACK - Mark Allman The SACK I-D is mostly nailing down corner cases (at revision 13). Have added a new and easier way to count bytes in flight that fixed a lot of corner cases resulting from the old method (agree?) and added threshold retransmission back. The SACK I-D was hummed for Proposed Standard working group last call and accepted by the meeting. The Using D-SACK specification is trying to keep spurious retransmissions from masking real loss. This is a detection case - what to do when you detect spurious retransmissions is left to another document. There's an (expired?) draft from Mark and Ethan on responses, and an EIFEL draft on responses. We don't need to tie detection and response to progress detection. Sally Floyd - yes, decoupled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Out-of-Path Signaling - John Loughney NSIS is doing on-path signaling, and the recharter is making this clear, but people in the working group are also interested in out-of-path signaling, so we're meeting here as a mini-BOF. Sven van den Bosch - Towards a BOF in San Francisco Examples - signaling to NSIS forwarders that aren't on the data path. Lots of interest - 100s of NSIS e-mails. Why important? Facilitates deployment, easier migration path, legacy equipment. There are existing products (risk of incompatibility). Concerns - Addressing, Self-healing (data plane and control plane don't share fate), Security (additional threats to analyze). Need to know next hop in control plane, need to tie to routing tables. Work should be done in IETF, coordinated with NSIS, and interoperable with NSIS. Need to focus on NSIS reuse, need to provide input to NSIS, need to ignore out-of-scope. Allison - knowledge of the players in a signaling environment the size of the global Internet isn't scalable. How could this be limited to something plausible and still be useful? ANS: Not per endpoint, but perhaps per AS path. Use telephony as example. Henning - we can only see this being scalable as a directory service in an AS. We used DNS beyond that. We don't need this to be globally scalable. ANS: This is too difficult to solve in NSIS. Christian - Scott was referring jokingly to everything over everything else (PWE3). Is this just overlay routing on top of IP? We always fall into the same trap - the topology of the overlay doesn't follow the topology of the Internet. ANS: The overlay isn't Internet-wide. Christian - we also have experience with subsets of the Internet. John Wroclawski - process question - if this problem is too ugly for NSIS, why is a second working group with the same problem and the same people any different? Allison: more time to focus on a different problem than NSIS. NSIS is an Internet protocol - this one isn't. John Loughney - speaking as NSIS chair, there's overlap but not complete overlap in the interested population and problem space. Rudiger Geib - I never thought about doing this outside a single domain. Markus Brunner - in favor of this kind of work, hoped to do it in NSIS, don't see concerns, it's a small addition. ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- TCP Extended Statistics MIB - Matt Mathis "When there's a problem, ask TCP". TCP already measures the network, can measure the application, and can adjust itself. The hourglass hides the lower layers from the upper layers. Good for growth but hides all the performance bugs. Any single performance bug masks all other bugs. TCP "tuning" is really debugging. Matt described the tables in the MIB. "Triage" instruments show why TCPs stop sending - just figuring this out is extremely valuable. Most of Matt's work is on bulk transport, that's what comes out in the MIB. 135 instruments in 8 tables with separate controls (based on your diagnostic needs) - is this worth the overhead you save? Stats available for fast polling on one connection and stats live after close (so you don't have to catch them at FIN time). Are the instruments complete? Do we call 'em bytes or octets? Like the handling of retransmitted data? Is the table partition and control appropriate? Fixing false optimization in RFC 2012 - measure total IP load, total data to application, subtract for retransmissions. "I'm not an SNMP/SMI genius" - some known issues (timestamps? Microseconds? 64-bit-counter sizes? Error semantics? Process Issues - current IPv6 draft has good, non-trivial transport extensions. IPv6 planning to roll back to 2012bis, orphans good work. Pick it up in our work? Need editorial help to make this happen. Dave Thaler - it would be good to roll this work together and pick up SMNP expertise in the process. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Eifel Response - Reiner Ludwig Reiner cheated slightly and talked about both detection and response, in a short overview of Eifel. These started out together but have been split into two documents. Detection has been nailed and will be revved and last-called. Response should be more controversial, but there's no mail on the topic. Last call to flush comments. Yogesh Swami - if you have more than one TCP connection, you can lose a lot of packets. What about change of subnets - a common source of spurious retransmits. Scott - move this discussion to the mailing list. Gogesh - testing with one TCP connection? What is realistic for response analysis? ANS: Eifel doesn't make TCP more aggressive. Allison hummed "should we publish the detection document as an Experimental now?" Following mailing list confirmation of this result, it will be placed on the IESG agenda for approval as as an Experimental. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- F-RTO Update - Pasi Sarolahti Pasi made a number of changes to the F-RTO algorithm based on comments to 00 and 01 versions. He's also added timestamped and SACKed variants of F-RTO. Open issues: adjusting congestion control state when spurious RTO is detected - causes problems in corner cases. Can we make a general draft on congestion responses? Need more mailing list discussion before this can be a working group document. Sally Floyd - are detection and response mechanisms really orthogonal? There are three response mechanisms on your slides - does it really not matter which detection mechanism you use? Marku Kojo - the idea of a generic response draft is to provide guidelines. Mark Allman - should this be in another document? The consensus was that we should decouple, F-RTO is putting detection and response back together - why are we doing this? ANS: It's possible to separate. Yogesh - if they're coupled, we still have work to do. Scott - need to take this to the list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Framing debate - Allison says it's time to cut to the chase! David Black - MDA iWARP draft sent here because it makes changes to TCP. IFT doesn't, but solves same problem. Paul - want to reduce copy overhead for network traffic, reduce CPU overhead, and enable this at volume price points. 10-Gigabit streams generate 20 Gigabits of data when we copy them. We need to identify headers - if we don't align, we have to buffer. Don't pack MSSes. Just turn off Nagle (TCP_NODELAY). Shouldn't do anything with data until TCP ACKs it? "Just buffer the data until it can be delivered" using an elasticity buffer? Out of Order Delivery makes this really big and expensive. We only need the elasticity buffer if we're placing partial F-PDUs. IFT - iWARP Framing for TCP Costs of markers don't justify benefits. Buffering is still required for flow control. There's an architectural cost of bugs that appear only when out of order packets arrive. Implementation is bad for existing TCP silicon, bad for software implementations, conceptually ugly. Unproven technology. Experiment, but use SCTP. Ole, Broadcom - issues are cost and TCP compliance. Cost - silicon vendors disagree with IFT assertions. This is TCP-compliant - that was the goal. The issue was packing, and we can fix that. Joe Touch - two semantics for TCP, on-the-wire and API. If you give data to an application out of order, you violate TCP. The problem is that we're changing what it means to use TCP. We can call it something else and use another protocol number, no problem. ANS: The upper layer of DDP and RMA is going to provide a reliable service, but it's not the same upper interface. (sorry) Broadcom - DDP is about an application making a buffer available to TCP anyway. There's a distinction between placing data and delivering data. Once a buffer is provided, it's OK to put data in it - but not to signal the receiver. David Black - RFC 793 understands shared buffers and requires clear rules for sharing. Pat Thaler - One of the reasons for putting a CRC in is because the network can corrupt the data. If a protocol doesn't include CRC retransmissions, it's at a disadvantage. ANS: What's the alternative? Telling TCP that you really didn't get the data you ACKed, so please retransmit? (sorry) Sun Microsystems - there's no change in the wire protocol, and the socket API being the sole API is debatable. Joe Touch - Need to be clearer about what's allowed between two protocols. This isn't about sockets, it's about SEND and RECEIVE. Randy - Trying to get to SCTP level - won't give data to applications. Scott - if we have to modify TCP, what's the advantage over SCTP? Not available in hardware yet. Pat - if one does RDMA over TCP, we can use the same stack for applications that use TCP directly. Two protocols would be prohibitive. John Wroclawski - I would use SCTP instead of the twenty-year-old protocol we're trying to retrofit! _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] IETF 55 TSVWG Minutes - draft Allison Mankin