Re: [Last-Call] [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




See a few comments (marked GF) from the perspective of other transport RFCs, in case this helps you find text...

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:00:15 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: tcpm <tcpm@xxxxxxxx>, Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>, Mark Allman <mallman@xxxxxxxx>, Last Call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider.all@xxxxxxxx




On 17 Jun 2020, at 18:20, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Stewart,

If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stewart,

do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your concerns?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman <mallman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Stewart, et.al.!

I just submitted a new version of rto-consider.  Please ask the
datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14.  The highlights:

  - The diffs with the last rev are here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt

In the general case, delay across a
    network path depends not only on distance, but also a number of
    variable components such as the route and the level of buffering in
    intermediate devices.

Its is more the contending/conflicting traffic rather than the buffering, or perhaps the time spent in queues, but “buffering” is a link a transport colloquial term.

GF: The word being sought might be "queueing" (I think that buffering is thought of as memory- and hence max queue).
Since our wide-area network paths are best
    effort, packet loss is a regular occurrence. 

No the best effort Internet experiences this. There ate many well engineered WAN that do not.

What I am not seeing is clearer text that distinguishes between user traffic and “engineering” traffic that is used to make the network work, and between the end to end traffic and traffic within an AS that may be there for other purposes (high value service also offered by the provider) and WANs that are well engineered.

Perhaps we could include a clearer disclaimer regarding the non-best-effort-internet-end-to-end traffic?

You have some text on this down in section 2 but it is a bit buried.

Perhaps something early on of the form: This document is specially concerned with end to end behaviour over the best effort Internet. As noted in section 2 it may not me applicable to other types of WAN, or to the  traffic used in affecting the operation of the Internet itself.

GF: Actually, I do think a well-engineering WAN can be in scope of your spec. The two wrods I was expecting were "controlled environment" or "pre-provisioned" capacity, these might not see the same oath properties. A DC is typically regarded in transport specs as a "controlled environment".
 An exception to this rule is if an IETF standardized mechanism
        determines that a particular loss is due to a non-congestion
        event (e.g., packet corruption).  

That is a bit heavy. It should be “a protocol” there than an IETF standardarized mechanism. The IETF does not have a monopoly on pre-blessing protocols before they are deployed.

GF: Unsure myself what is needed - isn't this guidance for design of protocol mechansims?


  - All small comments addressed.

  - I think we all agree that this is not a one-size-fits-all
    situation.  Rather, this document is meant to be a default case.
    So, the main action of this rev is to make that point more
    clearly.  The first paragraph in the intro is new.  Also, there
    are some more words fleshing out the context more in section 2.
    In particular, more emphatically making the point that other
    loss detectors are fine for specific cases.


As I note above from a routing and packet transport (as opposed to the transport layer) perspective I think we should more clearly recognise at the beginning the fact that this is for the worst case network, not for well engineered (WAN and DC) networks  and the mechanisms fundamental to the operation of the network itself.


  - The first paragraph in the intro also makes clear we adopt the
    loss == congestion model (as that is the conservative default,
    not because it is always true).

  - I made one other change that wasn't exactly called for, but
    seems like an oversight.

    Previously guideline (4) said loss MUST be taken as an
    indication of congestion and some standard response taken.  But,
    this guideline has an explicit exception for cases where we know
    the loss was caused by some non-congestion event.  Guideline (3)
    says you MUST backoff.  But, it did not have this exception for
    cases where we can tell the cause.  But, I think based on the
    spirit of (4), (3) should also have these words.  So, I added
    them.

In some cases you cannot tell the cause, but it is more important to ignore the loss. OAM being a particularly good example.


    Also, I swapped (3) and (4) because it seemed more natural in
    re-reading to first think about taking congestion action and
    then dealing with backoff.  I think the ordering is a small
    thing, but folks can yell and I'll put it back if there is
    angst.

Please take a look and let me know if this helps things along or
not.

allman

We are getting there, but I would ask that you take the transport hat off and look again from an infrastructure and packet transport perspective.

Best regards

Stewart


On 18/06/2020 11:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:


On 17 Jun 2020, at 18:20, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Stewart,

If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stewart,

do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your concerns?

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman <mallman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Stewart, et.al.!

I just submitted a new version of rto-consider.  Please ask the
datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14.  The highlights:

  - The diffs with the last rev are here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt

In the general case, delay across a
    network path depends not only on distance, but also a number of
    variable components such as the route and the level of buffering in
    intermediate devices.

Its is more the contending/conflicting traffic rather than the buffering, or perhaps the time spent in queues, but “buffering” is a link a transport colloquial term.


Since our wide-area network paths are best
    effort, packet loss is a regular occurrence. 

No the best effort Internet experiences this. There ate many well engineered WAN that do not.

What I am not seeing is clearer text that distinguishes between user traffic and “engineering” traffic that is used to make the network work, and between the end to end traffic and traffic within an AS that may be there for other purposes (high value service also offered by the provider) and WANs that are well engineered.

Perhaps we could include a clearer disclaimer regarding the non-best-effort-internet-end-to-end traffic?

You have some text on this down in section 2 but it is a bit buried.

Perhaps something early on of the form: This document is specially concerned with end to end behaviour over the best effort Internet. As noted in section 2 it may not me applicable to other types of WAN, or to the  traffic used in affecting the operation of the Internet itself.


 An exception to this rule is if an IETF standardized mechanism
        determines that a particular loss is due to a non-congestion
        event (e.g., packet corruption).  

That is a bit heavy. It should be “a protocol” there than an IETF standardarized mechanism. The IETF does not have a monopoly on pre-blessing protocols before they are deployed.




  - All small comments addressed.

  - I think we all agree that this is not a one-size-fits-all
    situation.  Rather, this document is meant to be a default case.
    So, the main action of this rev is to make that point more
    clearly.  The first paragraph in the intro is new.  Also, there
    are some more words fleshing out the context more in section 2.
    In particular, more emphatically making the point that other
    loss detectors are fine for specific cases.


As I note above from a routing and packet transport (as opposed to the transport layer) perspective I think we should more clearly recognise at the beginning the fact that this is for the worst case network, not for well engineered (WAN and DC) networks  and the mechanisms fundamental to the operation of the network itself.


  - The first paragraph in the intro also makes clear we adopt the
    loss == congestion model (as that is the conservative default,
    not because it is always true).

  - I made one other change that wasn't exactly called for, but
    seems like an oversight.

    Previously guideline (4) said loss MUST be taken as an
    indication of congestion and some standard response taken.  But,
    this guideline has an explicit exception for cases where we know
    the loss was caused by some non-congestion event.  Guideline (3)
    says you MUST backoff.  But, it did not have this exception for
    cases where we can tell the cause.  But, I think based on the
    spirit of (4), (3) should also have these words.  So, I added
    them.

In some cases you cannot tell the cause, but it is more important to ignore the loss. OAM being a particularly good example.


    Also, I swapped (3) and (4) because it seemed more natural in
    re-reading to first think about taking congestion action and
    then dealing with backoff.  I think the ordering is a small
    thing, but folks can yell and I'll put it back if there is
    angst.

Please take a look and let me know if this helps things along or
not.

allman

We are getting there, but I would ask that you take the transport hat off and look again from an infrastructure and packet transport perspective.

Best regards

Stewart



_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux