[tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with DISCUSS)
"Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 12 October 2016 13:49 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCD1129480; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147628016786.24262.9558908664390598186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:49:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/UWQ589T1tBaF3ub2O4VbnlXcfwM>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:49:28 -0000
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 3.17 = "An application sending ECN-capable datagrams MUST provide an appropriate congestion reaction when it receives feedback indicating that congestion has been experienced. This must result in reduction of the sending rate by the UDP congestion control method (see Section 3.1) that is not less than the reaction of TCP under equivalent conditions." Is the second "must" meant to be normative? If so, this worries me a bit. RFC 6679 I believe retains flexibility for endpoints to react to congestion in ways that are different from TCP and dependent on specific codecs, topologies, and other factors. RFC 3551 provides a lot of qualification in the requirements it places around equivalence to TCP's behavior. So I would be concerned about how this requirement, if normative, would affect RTP and other protocols. If it's not meant to be normative, I would suggest using "ought to" or some other word.
- [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsv… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf… Eggert, Lars