From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>,
bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
"Cake List" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
"codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
"ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] The "Some Congestion Experienced" ECN codepoint - a new internet draft -
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:08:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5VWSz67znZq_FKt01D89uaTSHL3xb9SzLPZwdpshe0TA@mail.gmail.com>
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
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
On 2019-03-10, 11:07, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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-morton-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 other
work in the github repo.
THX!
--
Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-10 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-10 18:04 [Ecn-sane] " Dave Taht
2019-03-10 18:53 ` [Ecn-sane] [Cake] " Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-10 19:08 ` Holland, Jake [this message]
2019-03-10 19:30 ` [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] " Jonathan Morton
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903110800310.3161@uplift.swm.pp.se>
2019-03-11 7:35 ` Richard Scheffenegger
2019-03-11 7:54 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-11 8:59 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-11 9:07 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2019-03-11 9:10 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-11 9:47 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2019-03-11 10:11 ` [Ecn-sane] [Codel] " Dave Taht
[not found] ` <00133e20-6639-c6db-a06c-57856bf78167@bobbriscoe.net>
2019-03-11 16:34 ` [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] [Codel] " Dave Taht
2019-03-11 16:14 ` [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] " Holland, Jake
2019-03-11 15:29 ` Holland, Jake
2019-03-11 16:13 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-03-11 7:43 ` [Ecn-sane] [Cake] " Sebastian Moeller
2019-03-13 4:39 ` David Lang
2019-03-10 21:11 ` [Ecn-sane] " Dave Taht
2019-03-10 21:28 ` Dave Taht
2019-03-10 21:49 ` Dave Taht
2019-03-10 22:37 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-03-11 3:23 ` Michael Richardson
2019-03-11 3:26 ` Dave Taht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/ecn-sane.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com \
--to=jholland@akamai.com \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=codel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox