IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] editorial comments on draft-duke-tsvwg-udp-ecn-03: "ECN mark" vs "codepoint"

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Wed, 13 November 2024 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 A5014C1DFD2E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VzcsHG8cSvV3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6308C1E0D9F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:02:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-460a8d1a9b7so226911cf.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:02:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1731506558; x=1732111358; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OgjDJJN/0pR/oFC5uziXZbC0QBo7JGzZL1ccJ3arAfs=; b=XzzjD6wWRYCSId+GXy2xosIvdZY1yrMODnbIKjMxJs5ZSnGcwxqjj+r478drMhH40/ TfiwlsMrOzOWXpsFFsLFny0sT1t0sq5Tt8o1ed6jVneMAjoOx2gHpisc5ZtQ6ZncuOUn i+3Y148Zi2EX+0C0OUjBufrgM8HN6xAU3RSQTkqkvKh4jb2/7rqEhnK4n1RWdVWilgz7 OwhJCEz9ZuD0EzN09/B6AwC6vm+CQXFUlmHdQS6RgoagpSLSUC0XXHvl5FRt5nYDltda xoyU/3XghG/hgl9kyyR2UbfmTFqbc3cuIbYPZil+0EwvfnNCk9ZxA9+xSYdURZ74+QBk 8POg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731506558; x=1732111358; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OgjDJJN/0pR/oFC5uziXZbC0QBo7JGzZL1ccJ3arAfs=; b=B2M9j08fSni7JjsBGm2pf+UVkzdhJYmisd1OdwhTecKZlGIzlooWg3MsSuwhDmmAdT J0eVFy/Tmvcy708pZhmLd66z7RP0t9SH1mLTcrunucQKSC8CCP4BfWo2i0kh5r4YTt67 p7eEoCMJpIl3cHzuFgXvp8qPnXL24qIvYx4cvVRR/GB/RAmY3fATJmgOs+E9jirRWT6E Np6SmPFFGMwUGvhZa58b1v5vEJ9gkd9++fjZN9r+KD1WSmJAv8WT1Zst8fT7dHvvZSua ubcEGoIO4f8z1ZXKSud7fSrEC9tspFCyLEgxcMgm/3z1fHzP+QZKuuXsgynmfBt92tr/ 0KQw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUfrCzzICkYxDS7/Jc8B0bTlMHt2SbyjvGjilr7CQimEIUs96H+t1gHnrDDUzgnMK6r4Ql50g==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwcnoZ8ltdSb94c2UhdQL7QsDnrCueDm6dFNtKIs19Wbp2mzjE1 D5lwLsniA9fxQXWkWsCsoYWipGURBsLPasRyFxX8q/sIb/Q8Pj+jL/pw1sX21RNeOo9HJr5maMa kg4gSaay4Aq0Zc5Immsb+nxMgX9RkJ3ixxt//WfXH9vhcBNX7s0JIonU=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuKNIcIyRN8CaVjiBhQe1JxWs7p3+wdha9mKchX58wCwJUxj5+In6hFL1mK3W3 JQpVZR7CuX234yZ99yIrY1eDvCT1hVqdu96re0Z0uiYKj1QBwcATp3ROlrlG6xAHL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEZDey+Vk8hmGuNv6okW9Lr8YeEBzkNMfHH9IDyYrK+itsiBTibqntX1HnV6vpMF5amcwATH6THySzVUdgg/gk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2a17:b0:460:e7fa:cf2 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4634cad99d7mr2618851cf.23.1731506557642; Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:02:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:02:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=OhG169djtAFXfQgiJTB5W5JViXZXPA8uk9XA0GS4s-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-duke-tsvwg-udp-ecn@ietf.org, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004bdba90626cbc9de"
Message-ID-Hash: 5IGPKC53ZKH6YWUUDQ5HFPL5XVQ4SMNQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5IGPKC53ZKH6YWUUDQ5HFPL5XVQ4SMNQ
X-MailFrom: ncardwell@google.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] editorial comments on draft-duke-tsvwg-udp-ecn-03: "ECN mark" vs "codepoint"
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/nhgItdyzSJa3m3gOoCCs_O975YM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

A quick editorial suggestion on draft-duke-tsvwg-udp-ecn-03:

It looks like this draft mostly uses variants of the phrase "ECN mark" (18
occurrences) to mean the two-bit ECN-related values in a packet, and only
uses the phrase "codepoint" twice.

RFC 3168 (classic ECN) is fairly consistent in using the phrase "codepoint"
to refer to those two ECN-related bits. And RFC 3168 only uses the phrase
"ECN marking" as the process of applying the CE code point ("replaced by CE
when ECN marking occurs in response to congestion or incipient congestion").

RFC 9331 (L4S ECN) is in line with RFC 3168: the two bits are the
"codepoint", "ECN mark" means CE, and "ECN marking" means changing the
codepoint to CE.

In line with RFC 3168 and RFC 9331, in my experience, the phrase "ECN
mark"  is most commonly used for the CE code point.

For clarity, I'd suggest that the draft-duke-tsvwg-udp-ecn align with RFC
3168 and RFC 9331 terminology in this regard.

best regards,
neal

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status