From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEEE63B29E; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 17:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id f11so2961348qti.7; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:11:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NAVmn8CxMFDQtsxjDm1s3g9A3MDMw9fRIlO8BP/fSe8=; b=HRNWXeIgaJaougjKAE8Gpo/UwYEQMXp1KcrS8oUmUZA2VuPfp6BlJAT0tjLiwBI1vO 50Vf4QfnrYm7xmAwbRbR0eURUqHMIjm4dxX6d0FqO+uCzcZW8PkBuhD6AAHyDKOw57D8 Swyha1d+JO+Zu6sHwxLnOX2QJFt2RPBFoNRpEmjXAhkeHaT/GOTKc5bJ3XBnfK1XySrg mzHH0weGLVL6xqvfvXUBkl34VgzIweB/uom8qZtKEp4aWYmdESXEIlKJdC6iIhhHjYyp DMxP/Ixlelbpmm4ygLnbLduEN12A7F/KrPEprdm1q6Zc2vYosJmrVXqp6fUPsdlIo5yH x+6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NAVmn8CxMFDQtsxjDm1s3g9A3MDMw9fRIlO8BP/fSe8=; b=C3U65nBfr0pm2SiRhfy5rbL960rnTrCqIAbDn/K0WfFo6k1DV5Ne2vtNJp0iplm7Wv lbn17S6NDUjhKDs/CO4FWucZxfUnOJKKGFVCDV2gyFRHtf8GnO+MOVlAGQfaKTEdzvhr 7M4TcSwdKsq9IvUcjFlrpqqrmkN17Gw+ge8tT5E2U3CEwndSwjKLy9bh1hMCVPozEcqc B36J7zPAg9iFzSCWMRPLJshbhabndNHeJgBq1p88jimzrjweto2UDrxUinU6G2i9ZapF fW2BKIqm7GMmDWxd4vMYna80y8t0fgXBjBbNdPqx2NntNFlrNQKXGItnCMVk8mjRdh76 zSJg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1uHrzNy4OlVKMQ2VYd7TR7bmu0Tng46+NpnsrBqfBQq/UbwRk WpYKJPheiArvgdlGCjX8nfG03JTs5DnfW1G1PoQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxcP7YZiE1f0BEfHjZ2VX2HlAukJ7tggF/LTurmGD3S/bwwwV68CnaO/8857TDgxjhwvbRiCFTyLGQM6fU4oAg= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2b51:: with SMTP id 17mr22831545qtv.328.1552252315455; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:11:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com> In-Reply-To: <550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:11:42 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Holland, Jake" Cc: bloat , Cake List , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] The "Some Congestion Experienced" ECN codepoint - a new internet draft - X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 21:11:56 -0000 On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 12:08 PM Holland, Jake wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > You and John have my enthusiastic +1. > > It's a frank relief to read this draft after trying to figure out L4S, > and I think the basic core concept upon which to build the actual > response systems is very well separated and very well framed here. > > Please submit this and present, I humbly beg you. It seems to me a > strictly better use of ECT(1), even though there's still probably a > few hundred pages' worth of catching up to do on draft-writing to > nail down details. > > I have a few minor comments for your consideration, but please don't > let them stop you from posting before deadline, if any are hard to > integrate. It would be better to ignore them all and post as-is than > to get hung up on these: > > 1. > "Some" in "Some Congestion Experienced" is maybe misleading, and > arguably has the same meaning as "Congestion Experienced". > > I was thinking maybe "Pre-Congestion Experienced" or "Queue > Utilization Observed", or if you want to preserve "SCE" and the > link to CE (which I do agree is nice), maybe "Slight" or "Sub" > instead of "Some", just to try to make it more obvious it's > flagging a lesser situation than "there is some congestion". > > 2. > It's easy to accidently read section 5 as underspecified concrete > proposals instead of rough sketches for future direction that might > be worth investigating. I'll offer an attempt at some language, > feel free to edit (or ignore if you think the intro is enough to > make the scope sufficiently clear already): > > > The scope of this document is limited to the definition of the > SCE codepoint. However, for illustration purposes, a few possible > future usage scenarios are outlined here. These examples are non > normative. > > 3. > Similarly, I would lower-case the "MAY" and "SHOULD" in section > 5.2 for receiver-side handling in TCP--it's not clear this will > ever be a good idea to do without more explicit signaling thru > new opts or whatever, and granting permission here seems like > asking for trouble that's just not necessary. > > > And a few that I'd defer if I were you, but I'd like to see > sometime in at least a post-Prague version or list discussion: > > 4. > an informative reference or 2 would be a welcome addition in Section 3: > > Research has shown that the ECT(1) codepoint goes essentially unused, > with the "Nonce Sum" extension to ECN having not been implemented in I have been trying to find that presentation or paper or talk or rfc for days now. I *know* it went by sometime in the past 2 years, I had my aha! moment - and I keep drawing a blank. Might have been something brian trammel did, I simply cannot remember. I definately want to cite that, and I sure hope I'm not delusional. > 5. > Should this must be MUST in Section 4? If not, why not? > > New SCE-aware receivers and transport protocols must continue to > > > Thanks guys, nice work and good luck! > > Cheers, > Jake > > > =EF=BB=BFOn 2019-03-10, 11:07, "Dave Taht" wrote: > > I would love to have some fresh eyeballs on a new IETF draft for the > TSVWG we intend to submit tonight. > > I've attached the html for easy to read purposes, but I would prefer > that folk referred back to the github repository for the most current > version, which is here: > > https://github.com/dtaht/bufferbloat-rfcs/blob/master/sce/draft-morto= n-taht-SCE.txt > > and in open source tradition, discuss here, or file bugs, and submit > pull requests to the gitub. > > The first draft (of 3 or more pending), is creating the SCE codepoint > and defining the state machine, is pretty short, and we think the > basic concept solves a zillion problems with ECN in one stroke. It's > easy to implement (one line of code in codel), backward compatible > with all the RFCs, and somewhat incompatible with the stalled out TCP > Prague/dualpi effort in the IETF. > > We have several other drafts in progress which I increasingly doubt > we'll finish today, but I think only this one is required to get an > audience in the tsvwg at the coming IETF meeting. > > If ya have any comments and spare time today, I'd like to get the > first draft in tonight, and the filing deadline for final drafts is > sometime tomorrow. It may help for context to review some of the othe= r > work in the github repo. > > THX! > > -- > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-831-205-9740 > > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740