2.8.18 Transport Area Working Group (tsvwg)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 64th IETF Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2005-10-31


Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
James Polk <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>

Transport Area Director(s):

Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>

Transport Area Advisor:

Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: tsvwg@ietf.org
To Subscribe: tsvwg-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe email_address
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The Transport Area receives occasional proposals for the development
and publication of RFCs dealing with Transport topics, but for which
the required work does not rise to the level where a new working group
is justified, yet the topic does not fit with an existing working
group, and a single BOF would not provide the time to ensure a mature
proposal. The tsvwg will serve as the forum for developing these types
of proposals.

The tsvwg mailing list will be used to discuss the proposals as they
arise. The working group will meet if there are one or more active
proposals that require discussion.

The working group milestones will be updated as needed to reflect the
proposals currently being worked on and the target dates for their
completion. New milestones will be first reviewed by the IESG. The
working group will be on-going as long as the ADs believe it serves a
useful purpose.

Goals and Milestones:

Done  Updates to RFC 793 to resolve conflict between diffserv and TCP interpretation of IP Precedence submitted for publication as Proposed Standard
Done  Addition to RFC 2018 to use TCP SACK for detecting unnecessary retransmissions submitted for publication as Proposed Standard
Done  Submit I-D on TCP Congestion Window Validation to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Done  Submit I-D on Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Done  submit revised ID for ECN to IESG for consideration as a proposed standard
Done  submit ID on UDP-lite to IESG for consideration as a proposed standard
Done  TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) unicast congestion control algorithm submitted to IESG for consideration as a proposed standard
Done  Submit ID for SCTP unreliable transport mode to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Mar 2004  Submit early retransmission to IESG for consideration as Experimental
Mar 2004  Submit SCTP Implementer's Guide to IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
Apr 2004  Submit Eifel response to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Jun 2004  ECN Nonce procedure submitted to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
Sep 2004  Submit ID for SCTP API for consideration as an Informational RFC
Sep 2009  TCP-Friendly Variable Rate Control unicast congestion control submitted to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard


  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-12.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-11.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-tcp-mib-extension-08.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-bw-reduction-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-service-classes-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-auth-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-00.txt

    Request For Comments:

    RFC2861 E TCP Congestion Window Validation
    RFC2883 PS An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for TCP
    RFC2988 PS Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer
    RFC3042 PS Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit
    RFC3168 PS The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
    RFC3309 PS Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change
    RFC3390 PS Increasing TCP's Initial Window
    RFC3436 PS Transport Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol
    RFC3448 PS TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC):Protocol Specification
    RFC3517 PS A Conservative Selective Acknowledgment (SACK)-based Loss Recovery Algorithm for TCP
    RFC3522 E The Eifel Detection Algorithm for TCP
    RFC3540 E Robust ECN Signaling with Nonces
    RFC3649 E HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows
    RFC3708 E Using TCP DSACKs and SCTP Duplicate TSNs to Detect Spurious Retransmissions
    RFC3742 E Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion Windows
    RFC3758 Standard SCTP Partial Reliability Extension
    RFC3782 Standard The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery Algorithm
    RFC3828 Standard The UDP-Lite Protocol
    RFC4015 Standard The Eifel Response Algorithm for TCP

    Current Meeting Report

    Allison Mankin 
    James Polk 
    Jon Peterson 
    Chaired by Allison & James  Jon is in ENUM
    TSVWG Session I (1 hour), 10 minute break, Session II (1 hour)
    TUESDAY, November 8, 2005
    1740-1840 Afternoon Session III
    1850-1950 Afternoon Session IV
    1) Agenda Bashing                       5
       Note Well
       Introduction of the "Experiment" (i.e. James Polk as new 
          WG Chair)
       Work through break?
    Decided we will work through break, and allow anyone to get 
    refreshments as wanted.
    Fred Baker: 
    What happens to the mlpp-that-works draft?
    Allison Mankin: 
    We will discuss this in the re-chartering section of the agenda.
    2) Bob Briscoe
    draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-00       20
    Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion
    Originally targeted for IPv6, reshaped it to IPv4 for this draft.
    Intended for standards track.
    Main concern: 
    Non-compliance with e2e congestion control (e.g. TCP-friendly)?
    Not just per flow congestion response
    -- smaller: per packet
    -- bigger: per user
    -- even bigger: per up stream network
    Previous Work
    - detect high absolute rate [commercial boxes]
    - sampled rate response to local congestion [RED+ sin bin]
    - transport control embedded in networks [ATM]
    - honest senders police feedback [nonce]
    Basic Idea
    -  Sender re-inserts congestion feedback into forward data: 
    -- On every Echo-CE, mark ECT(0) else mark ECT(1).
    Talks about the notion of Credit and Debit based on the reference point
    of balance (difference) of ECT(0) and CE marked packets at any point in
    the path.  This allows the notion of upstream congestion and downstream
    congestion from the reference point where this balance is tested.
    The goal of the balance is CE marked packets = ECT(0) marked packets.
    Talking about the Egress Policer and the Ingress Policer.
    Notice for Ingress Policer, depends on RTT.
    For RTT need sister proposal for "re-TTL".  Currently not in this 
    Accountability for Congestion Applications:
    - congestion-history-based-policer (congestion cap)
    - DDoS mitigation
    - QoS & DCCP profile flexibility
    - Load sharing, traffic engineering
    - Bulk metric for inter-domain SLAs or charges
    Requires Feedback Established (FE) flag in IPv4 or IPv6 
    Bit 48 in the IP header is currently un-used, thinking of using this 
    for FE flag.
    RE-ECN Limitations
    - This relies on ECN being used.
    - Dependency on getting re-TTL standardized.
    - Takes a while for dropper & policer to detect malice
    -- Dynamic attacks not detected fast enough.
    - Flow state at ingress policer and egress dropper.
    - Accountability has been a weakness of the Internet so far.
    - Request that ECN nonce be held as experimental
    Next Steps
    - finish RE-ECN draft
    - do RE-TTL draft
    Fred Baker: 
    On slide 11 of the inter-provider picture.
    Indicating that congestion not expected between providers.
    But at the link right before the receiver.  Does this solve
    the attack by causing the receiver to pay?
    Matt Mathis:
    Question on if sitting behind a slow speed modem.
    Does this method end up charging a user using a slow link
    sending small amount of traffic?
    Sally Floyd:
    We are not using a DSCP to separate this from current ECN nonce?
    Bob Briscoe: Correct.
    Sally: This will hold up the current nonce RFC.
    (Joe Elally ??):
    Can we be dropping packets that has already paid?
    Bob Briscoe:
    If interest in (Good Put??), this will have the correct incentive.
    If interest in DOS attack, the info can be sent upstream to
    stop the flow upstream to help mitigate the attack.
    3) Sally Floyd
    draft-floyd-ecn-alternates-02.txt        5
    draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-01.txt       5
    draft-kuzmanovic-ecn-syn-00.txt          5
    Alternate semantics of ECN draft
    - Should this be BCP or Informational?
    Changes from -01
    3 changes, please see slide.
    Georgios Karagiannis:
    End to End ECN and Edge to Edge ECN differences was not called out in 
    the draft.
    Both will need to satisfy this draft.
    Please send any suggestions on this.
    goal to be a BCP,  wants WGLC.  
    Hum for submission as WGLC.  
    To be submitted as BCP.
    Changes from last IETF: (See slide)
    - added 30-bit QS Nonce.
    - changed IP tunnels 
    To Do:
    Delete the sentence in Section 4.6.2
    Response feedback from Bob Briscoe
    Talks about the 30 bit QS Nonce (see slide)
    Changed heavily on section on IP Tunnel and IPsec AH
    based on comments from David Black and Joe Touch.  (see slide)
    Joe Touch:
    The tunnels that break are the ones at the receiver end and they
    are not detectable.
    Feedback from Bob Briscoe slide (see slide).
    Bob Briscoe: Asks to see what Bob's new nonce will do to this.
    (XXX ??):
    Can it use the TCP initial sequence number for this?
    Need a number that the receiver cannot get/guess.
    Need a random number, hence TCP initial sequence number will not work.
    Bob Briscoe:
    Clarifying that receivers are also senders, hence how
    can one that does not trust receiver trust senders? when
    a node plays both roles?
    No group action at this time on this ID.
    Presentation on draft-kuzmanovic-ecn-syn-00.txt
    Changes to 3168 to allow TCP SYN/ACK be ECN capable.
    Can this be made as WG work item.
    The hum indicates this should be WG item.
    Sally to resubmit this as WG item.
    *chair NOTE - since the meeting, this ID is in chair discussions to 
    move to the TCPM WG, if they would take this effort, as this has more 
    to do with TCP then ECN.  Chairs will let the WG know if/when status 
    changes to this ID.
    8) Chairs / Charter Revision   30/remainder
    Chairs moved discussion up to make sure enough of the WG was present 
    for this discussion
    - This WG will state that it is where maintenance for RSVP and SCTP 
    will take place.
    The existing Charter's Milestones are very out of date
    - Early Retransmission to IESG.
    - Submit SCTP Implementer's Guide on IESG tele-chat for Dec 1.
    - 2009 milestone date...
    New Milestones
    See slides
    Asking for dates for SCTP docs.
    WGLC after this meeting:
    - Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service for Real Time
      Services in the Internet Protocol Suite
    - RSVP extension for the Reduction of Bandwidth of a Reservation flow
    - DS Service Classes
    - DSTE (but will require 3 expert reviews posted to list prior to WGLC 
    Can add Alternate ECN to Dec 05 batch?
    Subha Dhesikan:
    should also add nested VPN to the WGLC list.
    RSVP IPsec? Under Security Area review.
    On the mic (??):
    Behave WG looking at SCTP, may want to consider their comments wrt 
    ECN Nonce to PS, need to discuss this offline with Bob's new work.
    TCP Friendly Variable Rate Control to DCCP, Sally indicated yes on 
    7) Michael Tuexen                       10
    addip status
    SCTP Implementer's Guide (see slide)
    v-16 considered done by WG, ready for IESG review
    SCTP Threat Doc
    - discuss changes to the doc (see slide)
    - Should this become a WG item as Informational
    -- 50% of room hum to support as WG item, no hum opposing.
    -- WG doc for next rev.
    SCTP Authentication Doc
    SCTP Add-In
    - Talk about the handling of wild-card addresses.
    SCTP Milestones (reflects date changes discussed during the meeting)
    - I-G - Dec 05 (Informational)
    - Add-IP and Auth - Feb 06 (PS)
    - 2960BIS - Apr 06 (PS)
    - Threats - Feb 06 (Info)
    - API - June 06 (Info)
    Allison asking for Temporary AD for handling the RFCs.
    4) Philip Eardley                       20
       Francois Le Faucheur
    Phil going over his slides on the Framework.
    Georgios Karagiannis (At the flow diagram (slide 4)):
    What happens if the source also sends ECN marking?
    If that is the case, we may use tunnels.
    There is admission control into this Diffserv class, hence
    that will normally not happen.
    Will follow-up with this on the list.
    Phil explaining the Preemption mechanism.
    Phil asking for feedback on this.
    (Tom Phelan ??):
    This is very similar to the RMD draft.
    Why do it here, why not use RMD?
    We encourage the RMD group to work with us on this, at least
    cross review the docs.
    Georgios Karagiannis:
    This is overlap with RMD.
    Francois Le Faucheur:
    We should try to see if we can converge.
    Ted Faber:
    Why are these in 2 different groups?
    Bob Briscoe:
    Thinks that ECN changes should be here, not NSIS.
    NSIS should be working on signaling, not ECN.
    But I may be wrong.
    Ted Faber:
    These groups should be in the same room.
    (Tom Phelan ??):
    Similar comments of using RMD draft.
    Conclusion: We need to converge.
    5) Francois Le Faucheur                  10
    RSVP-DSTE-00 draft
    Fred Baker, Kwok Ho Chan, and Subha Dhesikan volunteer as
    WG reviewers of this ID, to be done during WGLC.
    RSVP-IPSEC-02 draft (see slides)
    Changes 01 -> 02.
    Handling dynamic SPI/Security_Association updates
    - Need Security review on this.
    Next Steps
    - Complete Security Area Review
    - Simplify or remove of SPI from doc
    - Ask this to be WG work item.
    Next Step
    Janet Gunn:
    The high number is the higher priority, this is reverse of
    what is used in emergency.
    There are still typos in the draft, and this needs to be aligned with 
    other work to maintain consistency.
    6) Matt Mathis                          15
    Matt presenting.
    Did not present slides.
    Have been through MIB doctors.
    Hum indicates that when Matt is ready, start WGLC on this.
    Meeting ended at 7:55 PM


    ECN Alternates BCP
    Quickstart Experimental
    Title: Controlled Load Architecture
    Aggregation of RSVP reservations over MPLS-TE tunnels
    Generalizing RSVP reservation aggregation and IPsec tunnels
    RSVP admission priority element for emergency services
    TCP Extended Statistics MIB handoff to MIB Doctor
    TSVWG Charter Discussion
    AdHoc Meeting - Global Information Grid (GIG) Challenges BoF