Re: [tsvwg] comments draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-01

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Wed, 10 July 2013 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.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 A09BE21F9F75 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dg0nmrkUUBSa for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6296021F9F90 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id lf11so5088337vcb.26 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=oaSKPGiK/jLG9mBaspRo2X7lXVsRV9Cgr4pge6eCm+E=; b=a0AZA3QbFkfrtqVTyN6ASVkww4iDSDN1zcwNbtAX0+DZW9/lHXevPIc3GMVU0GYSAF mCp7VSmc+95oTXEnVrd+QAvG+oyDlkjJ21EKaNZlvniLZyrTBA9WXDUI8OswT1srx9he ypPAO+mFfdagR7F/x59TsB+YMrvg69XheBeF8GuJWZ+3hn/TZPRFRtghXl9fko/apWpU IuOblTuziihR9knSjdvzVjqQ3JylcL8Eaqto/pIqMNaDk2l3pQQ1CjZrdBsOtj+7ldQ7 iGsfkqdYpP4f0+ESh2jeuho+YHnUfG72sks0jRfwwFUXgzmvBfuuBNIY7dMKYJZGl+38 eAcQ==
X-Received: by 10.58.29.111 with SMTP id j15mr18509537veh.76.1373449737233; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.215.19 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <27BA1FEC-AE84-412F-8D8A-4857FF283149@fh-muenster.de>
References: <CAAFAkD-Kgb34TBC2bDWKVUfF4NNgyWSMzPk1MAU5rUwjkf=4uw@mail.gmail.com> <27BA1FEC-AE84-412F-8D8A-4857FF283149@fh-muenster.de>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 05:48:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD_+22YfgTa+DusmH-CAW3q-afH=f-tbHQLCXaKf-wbyOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6d9de0b4ae4004e1252fa4"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvEu2DyR+fQq1d+huOzYLGu+7Y3Ysz1w9wKA/xfsE1O1Oh3mhsyG0V7M7E6SoCx7p4vZT6
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:06:12 -0700
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "robin.seggelmann" <robin.seggelmann@t-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] comments draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-01
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 10 Jul 2013 09:49:08 -0000

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>wrote:

>
> Assume the sender sends a user message which is approximately of size
> 3*MTU.
> So SCTP will fragment it into 3 DATA chunk and send them. If the user
> has specified that the number of retransmissions is limited to 0 and
> the last fragment gets lost in the network, the sender will increment
> sprstat_abandoned_sent.
>

Ok,  so the last fragment essentially doesnt get acknowledged before we
abandon ship. And the other stat indicates we abandoned while we still had
some
sitting locally. Is the intersection of the two (some are sent but not
acked and
some are still sitting locally) implying both stats will be incremented?

Other than the perceived ambiguity -  why do i care to know about the
two types of abandoned messages in a user app? I  will have to sum
those two, so why not just give me one stat?

BTW: the doc will benefit from such a small description as you gave me
above.

What will happen at the receiver side if you assume that the first two
> fragments have been received. If partial delivery was started, you will
> get a SCTP_PARTIAL_DELIVERY_EVENT event indicating
> SCTP_PARTIAL_DELIVERY_ABORTED.
> Without partial delivery being started, the receiver could also drop the
> first part of the message.
>
>
You answered the essence of my question.
Silly follow up: I am assuming that event will come with an EOR?
To use your example (at receiver):
EPOLLIN, recvmsg chunk1, chunk2, EAGAIN
EPOLLIN, recvmsg SCTP_PARTIAL_DELIVERY_EVENT, EOR

cheers,
jamal