[tsvwg] Comments on draft-pauly-tsvwg-tcp-encapsulation

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik, hi Tommy,

I beliebe I promised in Montreal to send some more comments on draft-pauly-tsvwg-tcp-encapsulation; at least that’s what my todo list says (now that I reached down to some bottom part of it).

Anyway, here it comes, mainly based on what I already said in the meeting:

- Section 3: the example format you define is definitely the right way to go and is what is usually used. However, when I was reading encapsulation, I was thinking that you could probably also just put the whole UDP packet including the UDP header into the TCP stream. Is that a thing that we want maybe discuss as well?

- One comment I had in the meeting is actually related to this first point. I said that there should be a stronger recommendation to not change the protocol above. However, if you currently implement your own congestion control and the switch to TCP, it might actually be beneficial to disable that congestion control. I guess the point needs more discussion to figure out what we actually want to recommend, e.g. make minimal change and don’t change the header for easier convergence at gateway…?

- In section 3.1 it could probably make sense briefly mention the possibility of head-of-line blocking when you multiplex.

- Another high level comment from the discussion in Montreal was, that it would probably make sense to separate more clearly the case where encapsulation is used end-to-end or between tunnel endpoints. I guess for the second case, there may be some docs in the INT area that could be worth citing, e.g. draft-touch-intarea-tunnels; not sure if there is more.

That’s all I have for now! Hope that helps! Thanks for writing this up!

Mirja