the SCE draft is now submitted to IETF! I'm too tired to figure out what timezone conversion the UTC deadline is in PDT right now, and I guess the chairs need to move it into the tsvwg working group instead of individual submissions... and I have no idea what else I missed in the ietf processes. Ironically the ietf tools do not take upper case, so I had to rename the draft in the github repo. this is where it lies now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-taht-sce/ On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:28 PM Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > AHA! > > http://www.hjp.at/doc/rfc/rfc8311.html#sec_3 > > While the ECN nonce works as specified, and has been deployed in > limited environments, widespread usage in the Internet has not > materialized. A study of the ECN behavior of the top one million web > servers using 2014 data [Trammell15] found that after ECN was > negotiated, none of the 581,711 IPv4 servers tested were using both > ECT codepoints, which would have been a possible sign of ECN nonce > usage. Of the 17,028 IPv6 servers tested, four set both ECT(0) and > ECT(1) on data packets. This might have been evidence of use of the > ECN nonce by these four servers, but it might equally have been due > to erroneous re-marking of the ECN field by a middlebox or router. > > I'm not sure if I should cite 8311 or not here, rather than the > original research. > > I can't seem to coax our tool to output RFC3168 as normative. > > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 12:08 PM Holland, Jake <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > On 2019-03-10, 11:07, "Dave Taht" <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Dave Täht > > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > > http://www.teklibre.com > > Tel: 1-831-205-9740 > > > > -- > > Dave Täht > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-831-205-9740 -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
