[tsvwg] A few comments on the L4S Operational Guidance draft

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Tue, 02 March 2021 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 A14B43A149E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 01:47:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9CCkOA134WrJ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 01:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243113A149D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 01:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from GF-MBP-2.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 818691B00199; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 09:47:35 +0000 (GMT)
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <5BA56FE9-9288-4C06-A59D-3F9C21D62486@cablelabs.com>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <90d8d4f2-7de1-728e-6d33-ff164a9c1531@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 09:47:33 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5BA56FE9-9288-4C06-A59D-3F9C21D62486@cablelabs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3969A01031547CD429BEFF88"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/bTJ19Wg_eRak1eJoGPY0N0Hxmbg>
Subject: [tsvwg] A few comments on the L4S Operational Guidance draft
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: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 09:47:43 -0000

I've just looked at theL4S Operational Guidance draft as this will be 
presented at the next meeting and I do have a few comments/questions:

(1) There is text that hints that RFC3168 FIFO bottlenecks are rare:
    Since existing studies have hinted that RFC3168 FIFO bottlenecks are
    rare, detections using these techniques may also prove to be rare.
    Therefore, it may be possible for a host to cache a list of end host
    ip addresses where a RFC3168 bottleneck has been detected.

- I suggest “hinted” is not a great choice of words, maybe: suggested 
that FIFO bottlenecks might be rare, or talk about the possibility of 
these bottlenecks?
- This really needs a reference to the suggested evidence? or method to 
detect?
- I’m unsure  how such a caching would work, i.e. how the information 
would be aggregated - and how the timeliness could be managed. There 
appears some parallels here with TCB sharing - although different 
mechanism different problem?
- Although perhaps awkward in some stack, the risk seems low: Some short 
explanation of the likely risk in incorrectly classifying a path would 
be helpful.

(2) Text on Disable RFC3168 ECN Marking

    Disabling [RFC3168] ECN marking eliminates the unfairness issue.
    Clearly a downside to this approach is that classic senders will no
    longer get the benefits of Explict Congestion Notification.

- I wonder if this needs to be a lot more clear about what is being 
discussed - is this ECT(0) marking?

(3) Could we cite more the IETF recommendations from RFC 7567?

- I’m wondering whether the recommendations and mitigations can be 
related to RFC 7567, which is the BCP on AQM?

Best wishes,

Gorry