Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Fri, 16 April 2021 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 B27B43A2793 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 mDtpPWacPFsh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7575F3A2792 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1618582579; bh=1VUhfEnYwXQP9xcXjR4DDlqk2+YqiaGZopKM/Bpb3m8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=kziccAKKyafvOyw8LU5BI2oRXZvKs+dOGB2AB8LRoKmqNH2oznxy9mXZkxhsUtwA0 wyAHoZOSu9/etCAZUJOelxLRYjPDOBcoqDuHvSSzslvEDdYYIG+x2rLtajHrd/vlEK IHU9sXF39U+me9S4rB1r1W4VSdmouKO5Cme6gess=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.250.105] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MTiU3-1l5j020TGP-00U0xd; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:19 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <92C476A6-3E60-498B-A088-EF24E4B077AC@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_16D795CF-ED0F-4927-BC90-917D45455622"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:16:17 +0200
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB747629F14C5AEC5B47F40F56B94C9@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
To: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>
References: <AM8PR07MB7476A907FDD0A49ADBD7CA7EB9BD0@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <SN2PR00MB017475FC0E8C13754E531E17B6B69@SN2PR00MB0174.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476FAE559719D241375A816B9B19@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR0701MB22999C8C05ECA3D995FA7FFEC28F9@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476E0EB3FC368D3C69A5466B98F9@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DBBPR07MB7481E1026CDE30D494856F15B9989@DBBPR07MB7481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476FAEF53518DBFE457AC62B9949@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB747629F14C5AEC5B47F40F56B94C9@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:zKwf4/bSARUGJioREoiZFBL9XxRN8S/y7EFKXZg6gif0qUFRISm mJvTCb7S1EhmBlXCh3RAfXJuXLGw+jW2WUYkmRwFRozic9tshbeLlHZfCzLJEik4d9V3GPd 3enBKKR7lggeAbwGGvesypcPJT+AWy/M3kUyvfLfa/06PkNC3LraaPRovkkzbhf9TI3QzDL yn4iodkf/HhWXhndcmMfw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:NTtGjPDb/Y8=:WWWvLaI49yKIiiuklgaOii GZQ5bnohpFnjNjJLnAEqWDrbf896xOPnaBANFLEE7afgLr3BqqpK6UnKZhHJzqEo/y/qgUWQb 90M5G7Of4OhrLxUX9hdUDIgiJ64cJMOGjIwPpoNr397tB4MeT4WxuC0pJoxBJ76ehrjIyxuFG TPTYLtPhBSZUSmRrlvlt6FV+uaK/S7R/YrVNedfMhauGD6B9Gli2mFxGmXrSKLy3ZPEffvev/ JHIIp86ZTudAETmuPciUxEm+GPAiZvM+4HN2h2szoiZRDHphjnOAULzaozkl00i7Tnm3wNEoW /y4nqWbgTIVOHpdSrCYv98MycpuMCVM3sZL97QgrA96kyxaBempU/fm7cFaXs4o2hbaAbgA3M orvQS+JMET3W38Et1ONrZJVUuTLCvplgps6q6zccE6oqMa/3Nc7WfGdmQHCff4xpR9I1v4RcQ lZjkBJri29PCn6HTkS3GyhOjZskoHgFJ0dFsFStrMm1sg0C7K2V2R8+RxfyUfQYA5KnZH99YQ 9RO0S9/2Xb92BznUtTwm4MHUneO6/1pYuQJm/NXo/fjdCPZJNyoXw4Nz9PCfCu+7G5caYMBj3 shyXHw2AZlbeZN4lz2+ap9Gsu+GoLxASsIVH0nd0ZpF26uL+zPdOOJZLQviByjcwJcEHAxTfM iARex3jA0XVUHU6C5Ku1BMgbAky1rD6iScHMdWm+J30E0DWdvbvRrerehSJRGYMligfu35XCq 5tPZu358iXmf2PKe5QwDh6k3gunL8Bv9t0NLiLrTv2UgFmkzjG79Y5BCfLGHaEm5q3npqmwac cpxqzttpyt4+cpwT7cB2s3D7wBPf+BoCNfMCwJSDxKCg41h/ByaONzceDJqkKAL3p8IAGp8rm 6q+NXp2l275vG1avPjYrTgSNrdV4+NO2N7Ffdy0Tr6bvI7wRYi/CD2hJUhkCAxgBbUo86gBvb sZ4KbTW0/KvFSDzgkHgDYERtukxRVuV5oq6GtyCESvaL6MQtCVm4rRNdcbbtJTI9cdSKYjT8P 8QZRfsJk+oXJNAUw2OPbQYbaBnCY8GVdCUFfQ4vmhendw6cg0xlFwttv5fAeKsny9SGpRY9DY 6fsGKP9GD3t2oiS6+mzmkgxAIFtInkCoYqflNtDrJQrNb7GFEhwMVmJ8u8XcUZjkQ//CRtRbj Vnqczdab9o/c5lffQFx4oeETgF0fhVe0A83nFcmno/VEV79pYXTNhi+pBZpUKfOPtOYHw=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Yqr1euACsDWLn3kv_NUVDpvDJtQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:16:29 -0000

Hi Koen,

Thanks,.

Here is a question for Apple though:

"5. Reduce RTT dependence (A1.5)
Section 4.3: A scalable congestion control MUST eliminate RTT bias as much as possible in the range between the minimum likely RTT and typical RTTs expected in the intended deployment scenario.
Apple's comment:		
Again, agreed with the rationale behind this and the MUST compliance. This might be easy to implement as well based on heuristics but will require thorough testing."


If this is easy to implement, could you please propose a description of such a solution to the mailing list please? As far as I can tell RT- bias has been a topic of research for decades and still no general solution has beed presented, so I am quite interested to learn more about this comment. Even if the response is something like "for the expected range of RTTs from 1ms to 20 ms" a solution like TCP Pragues, pretend all RTTs are 20ms" I am quite interested in apple's thoughts.

Best Regards
	Sebastian





> On Apr 16, 2021, at 14:52, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> An update on the survey is available. We received an additional input from Apple which we could publicly share (thanks Vidhi for providing this input). I also updated the consolidated view v2 (available onhttps://github.com/L4STeam/l4steam.github.io#prague-requirements-compliance).
>  
> I believe it is strongly in line with the previous survey conclusions as presented in last tsvwg. One main additional feedback was on “7. Measuring Reordering Tolerance in Time Units”. There was disagreement that using time only and not packet count is a foolproof solution. As far as I understand the objection is to the current wording that a time based mechanism is the only/sufficient way to assure this.
>  
> The objective of this requirement is to allow a certain level of reordering for L4S traffic (actually avoid delaying packets in the network to guarantee correct order of packet delivery). I personally could support wording that expresses the core of the requirement, and not limit the text to one mechanism, which would allow alternative/more robust implementations. The requirement could be expressed as something like: “a scalable congestion control SHOULD  be resilient to reordering over an (adaptive) (time?) interval, which scales with / adapts to throughput, as opposed to counting only in (fixed) units of packets (as in the 3 DupACK rule of RFC 5681 TCP), which is not scalable”. Let’s further discuss here on the list what could be for all parties an acceptable wording.
>  
> Thanks,
> Koen.
>  
>  
> From: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) 
> Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 1:57 AM
> To: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>om>; tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> Subject: RE: Prague requirements survey
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> The details of the consolidated view of all feedback received is available and can be found via following link: https://l4steam.github.io/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_consolidated.pdf
>  
> The only strong objections were against the “MUST document” requirements, which will be removed from the next version of the draft. Some clarifications were asked and (will be) added.
> For 2 requirements a big consensus was that they should be developed and evolved as needed during the experiment.
> All other requirements had already implementations and if not, were seen feasible/realizable and were planned to be implemented.
>  
> We will present an overview during the meeting.
>  
> Regards,
> Koen.
>  
> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:20 PM
> To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> We have received several surveys privately, for which I tried to get the approval for sharing those on the overview page: l4steam.github.io | L4S-related experiments and companion website
>  
> Thanks to NVIDIA for sharing their view and feedback for their GeforceNow congestion control. Their feedback was added to the above overview about a week ago. As we didn’t get the explicit approval for the others, we will share and present a consolidated view of all feedback received later and during the meeting.
>  
> Note: pdf versions are now also available on the above page for easier reading.
>  
> Koen.
>  
>  
> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 2:37 PM
> To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>om>; tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>  
> Hi Ingemar,
>  
> Thanks for your contributions. I linked your doc to the https://l4steam.github.io/#prague-requirements-compliance web page (and will do so for others).
>  
> I didn’t see any issues or objections mentioned to the current requirements as specified in the draft. Does this mean you think they are all reasonable, valid and feasible?
>  
> Interesting observation (related to the performance optimization topic 1) that for the control packets “RTCP is likely not using ECT(1)”. Why is this not likely? I assume this will impact the performance? Do we need to recommend the use of ECT(1) on RTCP packets in the draft?
>  
> Thanks,
> Koen.
>  
> From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:59 AM
> To: De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>om>; tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
> Subject: RE: Prague requirements survey
>  
> Hi
> Please find attached (hopefully) a Prague requirements survey applied to SCReAM (RFC8298 std + running code)
>  
> Regards
> Ingemar
>  
> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: den 6 februari 2021 23:20
> To: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> To get a better understanding on the level of consensus on the Prague requirements, we prepared an overview document listing the L4S-ID draft requirements specific to the CC (wider Prague requirements), as a questionnaire towards potential CC developers. If you are developing or have developed an L4S congestion control, you can describe the status of your ongoing development in the second last column. If you cannot share status, or plan-to/would implement an L4S CC, you can list what you would want to support (see feasible). In the last column you can put any description/limitations/remarks/explanations related to evaluations, implementations and/or plans (will implement or will not implement). Any expected or experienced issues and any objections/disagreements to the requirement can be explained and colored appropriately.
>  
> The document can be found on following link: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/L4STeam/l4steam.github.io/master/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_template.docx
>  
> As an example I filled it for the Linux TCP-Prague implementation on following link: https://l4steam.github.io/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_Linux_TCP-Prague.docx
>  
> Please send your filled document to the list (Not sure if an attachment will work, so I assume you also need to store it somewhere and send a link to it, or send to me directly).
>  
> We hope to collect many answers, understanding the position of the different (potential) implementers and come faster to consensus.
>  
> Thanks,
> Koen.