Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.com>
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 312933A1061 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wKwWvIuneT-A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D4B3A0951 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f10so12177542ljn.6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JERbDsn6DV6crT27kIixZ7PxcBR1dCagZFWTmmAzjtc=; b=bbaIoJvx5xAisxlleSpTh89oenvP6vQuCXHHzWdL3zV+CaZ16qalANmxEYxlaFhIxl 2VbMjYp2zkD15BxskBeTBi2A2oJB1QXYUL2hEgIxYQzbu4Am9+0FMdsjoRRcWeTMGJTr XxGex/LGZ3EYMyezz18Mn87xzBGL+pG7fo07PbRX9juCdVbFHdRZxwki9E16MxmRttuz nIJFrHspH7vTNijZ+g0bCBRhOgvYtO25MttAEE1sR0qbSZaPcyf0djsSRnnjeI5u/yMd mBbVikZ23ZG7N8w2/Wj/RNOeFkEW0EcVL3vFwLAaJJ2epu93jbgjnQsEZ/SCnEgJsIjv d50A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JERbDsn6DV6crT27kIixZ7PxcBR1dCagZFWTmmAzjtc=; b=PdDJJJG79hbXxZoK6tMbilCtkzxIBYHHiCoh/sYVv27CssHTcF444Rd1BvS9iVXZJb 09BruvAqx+yvxoOHJKNw8HRsk6Kj7hQC+pGiHdDjwECHklJyqCXQJVEkRBv6oDaoUIaD 26wNJry6Kbml7KibEKYhU6X+ozNny6iriIqxldsi1zE9MZkIvpLImhRxfJKkhcM01YEr YYq1+scgrW3UD9aQnO5Sc70FYvEFhZ8ah1bnqCf595Jj7t/wX7pm9gONi/jeX1FY2XM2 a/7VJUZWB6UP9qtWZOs8YjQ0pBE/Uyz5h4MVGiTnBJ9g7PwfnWFScJdkLG4zoAPVEE9I vQtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1JHT99h7itoi8gAGCCd3rs3BJsMq1UjBNzsYr3VNACQ2qL4eUN 4iIyQ++gfum5s1MCiZxZEp0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtDdlyMrZZ/YBK94Z7xN516LJS2Zh58fduZCj62?= =?utf-8?q?ny2pn6Xuy/WnNAt2Uj0veZZGpZ3U32e6Zw=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e16:: with SMTP id e22mr10033278ljk.220.1584135480677; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-250-250-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.250.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m203sm8179764lfa.88.2020.03.13.14.37.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8C911EA-65BB-4D3A-BD41-9BF6504B9C22@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 23:37:58 +0200
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5FA5BD5A-E561-47E6-AF83-0D2E9F249B11@gmail.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306F8925@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <2873ab79-19ad-0541-e3a4-d1d28dbc7ba0@bobbriscoe.net> <B6D58310-41E0-4172-B555-D28E7926A0B5@gmail.com> <3ee6e427-9dc9-e885-21a9-df9e35d99006@bobbriscoe.net> <C1696430-D2D2-48BB-AB17-EFB77EE474DE@gmail.com> <5d8f11f3-9def-14b1-4923-4eb02caf51eb@bobbriscoe.net> <50B14177-EB29-4273-839C-D22CCC47511E@gmail.com> <4f66ba3e-9eed-03cd-7f45-a1d7d10ec697@bobbriscoe.net> <FF777393-47B2-4B53-AD41-5883B2D67CC5@gmail.com> <264398ad-59eb-7cfd-0276-35ae0f0120a5@bobbriscoe.net> <44EB050C-C35C-47A0-BC78-3EEDB683B507@gmail.com> <c802dddc-8a55-47ea-9976-06771d39c952@bobbriscoe.net> <A608F4F5-F6C4-40CD-86B3-CCB1D8B2D419@gmail.com> <D8C911EA-65BB-4D3A-BD41-9BF6504B9C22@akamai.com>
To: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/gQ_iwSrVgTDt8OMp0QoX-Y0RCOk>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Status of ECN encapsulation drafts (i.e., stuck)
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, 13 Mar 2020 21:38:04 -0000

> On 13 Mar, 2020, at 11:19 pm, Holland, Jake <jholland@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> Ah, thanks Jonathan.  I agree this is a good guess at the model.
> 
> I'll try my own phrasing to see if there's a chance I might be caught up now:
> 
> (1) If we consider 2 flows, one whose packets are all fragmented into 2 packets
> each, and another that's unfragmented, but otherwise identically sending across an
> identically congested AQM, an AQM that marks 2% of the packets in the unfragmented
> one could end up causing marks on up to 4% of the packets in the fragmented flow,
> as counted after reassembly.

Yes, that's consistent with my current understanding.

> If that successfully gets us all on roughly the same page, can we also agree
> that logical-OR reassembly preserves the property below?
> 
> (2) If a receiver sees N CE-marked packets in a sequence of packets, the network
> emitted at least N separate CE-marks while forwarding those packets.
> 
> To clarify one of my previous messages, (1) addresses what I was calling
> "proportion of CE-marked packets" and (2) speaks to what I meant by "number of
> CE-marked packets" in my response.  I was thrown by the "both number and proportion"
> claim in the "long response" email.

Yes, I believe that's true.  I don't think either of the worked examples I gave are in dispute.

Ultimately I think the confusion arose from Bob thinking that marking proportion and marking rate are related in ways that, in fact, they are not (except under assumptions that are invalid in this case).

 - Jonathan Morton