Hi Chris, CCID 3 looks good to me, I'm OK with the text.
We could just use the port number, 6514, as the service code. Since the service identifier applies to more than DCCP, it probably makes more sense the follow the scheme defined in RFC4340 where a 4 letter string is used as the service identifier, such as the following: SC:SYLG SC=x53594C47 SC=1398361159 Cheers, Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Chris Lonvick (clonvick) > Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls > > Hi Folks, > > I'll suggest CCID 3 because that's my lucky number. ;-) > > Seriously, here is a relevant point from RFC 5238: > ===vvv=== > In addition to the retransmission issues, if the throughput needs of > the actual application data differ from the needs of the DTLS > handshake, it is possible that the handshake transference could leave > the DCCP congestion control in a state that is not immediately > suitable for the application data that will follow. For example, > DCCP Congestion Control Identifier (CCID) 2 ([RFC4341]) congestion > control uses an Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) > algorithm similar to TCP congestion control. If it is used, then it > is possible that transference of a large handshake could cause a > multiplicative decrease that would not have happened with the > application data. The application might then be throttled while > waiting for additive increase to return throughput to acceptable > levels. > > Applications where this might be a problem should consider using DCCP > CCID 3 ([RFC4342]). CCID 3 implements TCP-Friendly Rate Control > (TFRC, [RFC3448])). TFRC varies the allowed throughput more slowly > than AIMD and might avoid the discontinuities possible with CCID 2. > ===^^^=== > > My reasoning for choosing CCID 3 is that when some devices start up they > will queue up syslog messages until the network is up, and then they will > start to deliver them. I don't want a large handshake to throttle that > initial burst of messages. (Please challenge this assumption if you have > a better understanding of the process.) > > I'll suggest that the specific wording will need to be: "MUST implement > CCID 3 and SHOULD implement CCID 2 to ensure interoperability". Does that > sound OK to everyone? > > > Joe: can you look at Sean's second question and let us know about that? > > Thanks, > Chris > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Sean Turner wrote: > > > I have one major comment and it relates to DCCP: > > > > The DCCP chairs tell me that to specify the use of DCCP the ID needs to > > decide which CCID it will use (CCID 2 is AIMD and CCID 3 is TFRC). I > was > > hoping that the DTLS over DCCP RFC addressed this, but that RFC doesn't > pick > > one it leaves this choice to the "application". > > > > Can you also confirm that the Port # is used as the DCCP service code? > > > > spt > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
