| < draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00.txt | draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transport Area Working Group D. Black | Transport Area Working Group D. Black | |||
| Internet-Draft Dell EMC | Internet-Draft Dell EMC | |||
| Obsoletes: 3540 (if approved) December 15, 2016 | Obsoletes: 3540 (if approved) March 8, 2017 | |||
| Updates: 3168, 4341, 4342, 5622, 6679 | Updates: 3168, 4341, 4342, 5622, 6679 | |||
| (if approved) | (if approved) | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track | Intended status: Standards Track | |||
| Expires: June 18, 2017 | Expires: September 9, 2017 | |||
| Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation | Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation | |||
| draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00 | draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-01 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Multiple protocol experiments have been proposed that involve changes | Multiple protocol experiments have been proposed that involve changes | |||
| to Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as specified in RFC 3168. | to Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as specified in RFC 3168. | |||
| This memo summarizes the proposed areas of experimentation to provide | This memo summarizes the proposed areas of experimentation to provide | |||
| an overview to the Internet community and updates RFC 3168, a | an overview to the Internet community and updates RFC 3168, a | |||
| Proposed Standard RFC, to allow the experiments to proceed without | Proposed Standard RFC, to allow the experiments to proceed without | |||
| requiring a standards process exception for each Experimental RFC to | requiring a standards process exception for each Experimental RFC to | |||
| update RFC 3168. Each experiment is still required to be documented | update RFC 3168. Each experiment is still required to be documented | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2017. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2017. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶ | |||
| 4.3. Generalized ECN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.3. Generalized ECN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.4. Effective Congestion Control is Required . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.4. Effective Congestion Control is Required . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 5. ECN for RTP Updates to RFC 6679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. ECN for RTP Updates to RFC 6679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6. ECN for DCCP Updates to RFCs 4341, 4342 and 5622 . . . . . . 10 | 6. ECN for DCCP Updates to RFCs 4341, 4342 and 5622 . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Multiple protocol experiments have been proposed that involve changes | Multiple protocol experiments have been proposed that involve changes | |||
| to Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as specified in RFC 3168 | to Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as specified in RFC 3168 | |||
| [RFC3168]. This memo summarizes the proposed areas of | [RFC3168]. This memo summarizes the proposed areas of | |||
| experimentation to provide an overview to the Internet community and | experimentation to provide an overview to the Internet community and | |||
| updates RFC 3168 to allow the experiments to proceed without | updates RFC 3168 to allow the experiments to proceed without | |||
| requiring a standards process exception for each Experimental RFC to | requiring a standards process exception for each Experimental RFC to | |||
| update RFC 3168, a Proposed Standard RFC. This memo also makes | update RFC 3168, a Proposed Standard RFC. This memo also makes | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 17 ¶ | |||
| traffic not receive different treatment in the network. | traffic not receive different treatment in the network. | |||
| Generalized ECN: Use ECN for TCP control packets (i.e., send control | Generalized ECN: Use ECN for TCP control packets (i.e., send control | |||
| packets such as SYN with ECT marking) and for retransmitted | packets such as SYN with ECT marking) and for retransmitted | |||
| packets, e.g., as proposed in [I-D.bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn]. | packets, e.g., as proposed in [I-D.bagnulo-tsvwg-generalized-ecn]. | |||
| This is at variance with RFC 3168's prohibition of use of ECN for | This is at variance with RFC 3168's prohibition of use of ECN for | |||
| TCP control packets and retransmitted packets | TCP control packets and retransmitted packets | |||
| The scope of this memo is limited to these three areas of | The scope of this memo is limited to these three areas of | |||
| experimentation. This memo neither prejudges the outcomes of the | experimentation. This memo neither prejudges the outcomes of the | |||
| proposed experiments nor specifies the experiments in detail. The | proposed experiments nor specifies the experiments in detail. | |||
| purpose of this memo is to remove constraints in standards track RFCs | Additional experiments in these areas are possible, e.g., on use of | |||
| that serve to prohibit these areas of experimentation. | ECN to support deployment of Datacenter TCP (DCTCP) | |||
| [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] beyond its current applicablity limitation to | ||||
| data center environments. The purpose of this memo is to remove | ||||
| constraints in standards track RFCs that serve to prohibit these | ||||
| areas of experimentation. | ||||
| 3. ECN Nonce and RFC 3540 | 3. ECN Nonce and RFC 3540 | |||
| As specified in RFC 3168, ECN uses two ECN Capable Transport (ECT) | As specified in RFC 3168, ECN uses two ECN Capable Transport (ECT) | |||
| codepoints to indicate that a packet supports ECN, ECT(0) and ECT(1), | codepoints to indicate that a packet supports ECN, ECT(0) and ECT(1), | |||
| with the second codepoint used to support ECN nonce functionality to | with the second codepoint used to support ECN nonce functionality to | |||
| discourage receivers from exploiting ECN to improve their throughput | discourage receivers from exploiting ECN to improve their throughput | |||
| at the expense of other network users, as specified in experimental | at the expense of other network users, as specified in experimental | |||
| RFC 3540 [RFC3540]. | RFC 3540 [RFC3540]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 9 ¶ | |||
| 3168 that are updated draws heavily from | 3168 that are updated draws heavily from | |||
| [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response], whose authors are gratefully | [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response], whose authors are gratefully | |||
| acknowledged. The authors of the Internet Drafts describing the | acknowledged. The authors of the Internet Drafts describing the | |||
| experiments have motivated the production of this memo - their | experiments have motivated the production of this memo - their | |||
| interest in innovation is welcome and heartily acknowledged. Colin | interest in innovation is welcome and heartily acknowledged. Colin | |||
| Perkins suggested updating RFC 6679 on RTP and provided guidance on | Perkins suggested updating RFC 6679 on RTP and provided guidance on | |||
| where to make the updates. | where to make the updates. | |||
| The draft has been improved as a result of comments from a number of | The draft has been improved as a result of comments from a number of | |||
| reviewers, including Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Ingemar | reviewers, including Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Ingemar | |||
| Johansson, Naeem Khademi, Mirja Kuehlewind and Michael Welzl. Bob | Johansson, Naeem Khademi, Mirja Kuehlewind, Karen Nielsen and Michael | |||
| Briscoe's thorough review of an early version of this draft resulted | Welzl. Bob Briscoe's thorough review of an early version of this | |||
| in numerous improvments including addition of the updates to the DCCP | draft resulted in numerous improvments including addition of the | |||
| RFCs. | updates to the DCCP RFCs. | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
| This memo includes no request to IANA. | This memo includes no request to IANA. | |||
| 9. Security Considerations | 9. Security Considerations | |||
| As a process memo that makes no changes to existing protocols, there | As a process memo that makes no changes to existing protocols, there | |||
| are no protocol security considerations. | are no protocol security considerations. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Bagnulo, M. and B. Briscoe, "Adding Explicit Congestion | Bagnulo, M. and B. Briscoe, "Adding Explicit Congestion | |||
| Notification (ECN) to TCP control packets", draft-bagnulo- | Notification (ECN) to TCP control packets", draft-bagnulo- | |||
| tsvwg-generalized-ecn-01 (work in progress), July 2016. | tsvwg-generalized-ecn-01 (work in progress), July 2016. | |||
| [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] | [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] | |||
| Schepper, K., Briscoe, B., and I. Tsang, "Identifying | Schepper, K., Briscoe, B., and I. Tsang, "Identifying | |||
| Modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Semantics | Modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Semantics | |||
| for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s- | for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s- | |||
| id-02 (work in progress), October 2016. | id-02 (work in progress), October 2016. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] | ||||
| Bensley, S., Eggert, L., Thaler, D., Balasubramanian, P., | ||||
| and G. Judd, "Datacenter TCP (DCTCP): TCP Congestion | ||||
| Control for Datacenters", draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-04 (work | ||||
| in progress), February 2017. | ||||
| [I-D.khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn] | [I-D.khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn] | |||
| Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst, | Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst, | |||
| "TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)", draft-khademi- | "TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)", draft-khademi- | |||
| tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-01 (work in progress), October | tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-01 (work in progress), October | |||
| 2016. | 2016. | |||
| [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response] | [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response] | |||
| Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst, | Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst, | |||
| "Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) | "Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) | |||
| Specification to Allow IETF Experimentation", draft- | Specification to Allow IETF Experimentation", draft- | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 45 ¶ | |||
| changes to Section 4.2. | changes to Section 4.2. | |||
| o Clean up and tighten language requiring all congestion responses | o Clean up and tighten language requiring all congestion responses | |||
| to be IETF-approved | to be IETF-approved | |||
| o Additional editorial changes. | o Additional editorial changes. | |||
| Initial WG draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00, has same | Initial WG draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00, has same | |||
| contents as draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-04. | contents as draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-04. | |||
| Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-00 to -01: | ||||
| o Add mention of DCTCP as another protocol that could benefit from | ||||
| ECN experimentation (near end of Section 2). | ||||
| Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
| David Black | David Black | |||
| Dell EMC | Dell EMC | |||
| 176 South Street | 176 South Street | |||
| Hopkinton, MA 01748 | Hopkinton, MA 01748 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: david.black@dell.com | Email: david.black@dell.com | |||
| End of changes. 10 change blocks. | ||||
| 13 lines changed or deleted | 28 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||