Re: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Compatibility with singlw queue RFC3168 AQMs

[Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>]

On 07/08/2019 13:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> 
>> (assuming TCP SACK in use).  But the socket interface would need
>> to present sequencing information along with the segments; it being
>> no longer implied by the sequence of satisfied reads.
> 
> Yes, the socket stream interface guarantees ordered delivery of that
> stream. That doesn't mean other 5 tuple connections running over the
> same media need to be held up just because a packet is missing from this
> first stream. A lot of medias guarantees complete ordering, even between
> flows/streams. If we loosen this requirement then muxed transports or
> other stream can continue even if there is a packet missing and being
> ARQed on the media.

I can't quite tell if you're noting that transports need to be aware of,
and handle (in one way or another) packets re-ordered by lower layers
[ I thought this was a given, already ]

or

that link-layers Should Not enforce ordered delivery of frames
[ i.e. Wifi and, I think, mobile phone providers are doing it all
wrong.   And half of the work being talked about in the LOOPS
group is suspect].


The latter sounds somewhat like the end-to-end principle.

-- 
Cheers,
  Jeremy