Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06

Versions: (draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation)        Standards Track
          00 01 02 03 04 05 06                                          
Transport Area Working Group                                    D. Black
Internet-Draft                                                  Dell EMC
Updates: 3168, 4341, 4342, 5622, 6679                 September 20, 2017
         (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 24, 2018


         Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
                draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-06

Abstract

   This memo updates RFC 3168, which specifies Explicit Congestion
   Notification (ECN) as a replacement for packet drops as indicators of
   network congestion.  It relaxes restrictions in RFC 3168 that would
   otherwise hinder experimentation towards benefits beyond just removal
   of loss.  This memo summarizes the anticipated areas of
   experimentation and updates RFC 3168 to enable experimentation in
   these areas.  An Experimental RFC is required to take advantage of
   any of these enabling updates.  In addition, this memo makes related
   updates to the ECN specifications for RTP in RFC 6679 and for DCCP in
   RFC 4341, RFC 4342 and RFC 5622.  This memo also records the
   conclusion of the ECN nonce experiment in RFC 3540, and provides the
   rationale for reclassification of RFC 3540 as Historic; this
   reclassification enables new experimental use of the ECT(1)
   codepoint.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2018.







Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  ECN Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Proposed ECN Experiments: Background  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  ECN Nonce and RFC 3540  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Updates to RFC 3168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Congestion Response Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Congestion Marking Differences  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  TCP Control Packets and Retransmissions . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Effective Congestion Control is Required  . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  ECN for RTP Updates to RFC 6679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  ECN for DCCP Updates to RFCs 4341, 4342 and 5622  . . . . . .  13
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


1.  Introduction

   This memo updates RFC 3168 [RFC3168] which specifies Explicit
   Congestion Notification (ECN) as a replacement for packet drops as
   indicators of network congestion.  It relaxes restrictions in RFC
   3168 that would otherwise hinder experimentation towards benefits
   beyond just removal of loss.  This memo summarizes the proposed areas
   of experimentation and updates RFC 3168 to enable experimentation in
   these areas.  An Experimental RFC MUST be published for any protocol
   or mechanism that takes advantage of any of these enabling updates.
   Putting all of these updates into a single document enables
   experimentation to proceed without requiring a standards process
   exception for each Experimental RFC that needs changes to RFC 3168, a
   Proposed Standard RFC.

   There is no need to make changes for protocols and mechanisms that
   are documented in Standards Track RFCs, as any Standards Track RFC
   can update RFC 3168 without needing a standards process exception.

   In addition, this memo makes related updates to the ECN specification
   for RTP [RFC6679] and for three DCCP profiles ([RFC4341], [RFC4342]
   and [RFC5622]) for the same reason.  Each experiment is still
   required to be documented in one or more separate RFCs, but use of
   Experimental RFCs for this purpose does not require a process
   exception to modify any of these Proposed Standard RFCs when the
   modification falls within the bounds established by this memo (RFC
   5622 is an Experimental RFC; it is modified by this memo for
   consistency with modifications to the other two DCCP RFCs).

   Some of the anticipated experimentation includes use of the ECT(1)
   codepoint that was dedicated to the ECN nonce experiment in RFC 3540
   [RFC3540].  This memo records the conclusion of the ECN nonce
   experiment and provides the explanation for reclassification of RFC
   3540 as Historic in order to enable new experimental use of the
   ECT(1) codepoint.

1.1.  ECN Terminology

   ECT: ECN-Capable Transport.  One of the two codepoints ECT(0) or
   ECT(1) in the ECN field [RFC3168] of the IP header (v4 or v6).  An
   ECN-capable sender sets one of these to indicate that both transport
   end-points support ECN.

   Not-ECT: The ECN codepoint set by senders that indicates that the
   transport is not ECN-capable.






Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   CE: Congestion Experienced.  The ECN codepoint that an intermediate
   node sets to indicate congestion.  A node sets an increasing
   proportion of ECT packets to CE as the level of congestion increases.

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Proposed ECN Experiments: Background

   Three areas of ECN experimentation are covered by this memo; the
   cited Internet-Drafts should be consulted for the detailed goals and
   rationale of each proposed experiment:

   Congestion Response Differences:  As discussed further in
      Section 4.1, an ECN congestion indication communicates a higher
      likelihood that a shorter queue exists at the network bottleneck
      node by comparison to a packet drop that indicates congestion
      [I-D.ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn].  This difference suggests
      that for congestion indicated by ECN, a different sender
      congestion response (e.g., reduce the response so that the sender
      backs off by a smaller amount) may be appropriate by comparison to
      the sender response to congestion indicated by loss, e.g., as
      proposed in [I-D.ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn] and
      [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] - the experiment in the latter draft
      couples the backoff change to Congestion Marking Differences
      changes (next bullet).  This is at variance with RFC 3168's
      requirement that a sender's congestion control response to ECN
      congestion indications be the same as to drops.  IETF approval,
      e.g., via an Experimental RFC, is required for any sender
      congestion response used in this area of experimentation.

   Congestion Marking Differences:  As discussed further in Section 4.2,
      when taken to its limit, congestion marking at network nodes can
      be configured to maintain very shallow queues in conjunction with
      a different IETF-approved congestion response to congestion
      indications (CE marks) at the sender, e.g., as proposed in
      [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].  The traffic involved needs to be
      identified by the senders to the network nodes in order to avoid
      damage to other network traffic whose senders do not expect the
      more frequent congestion marking used to maintain very shallow
      queues.  Use of different ECN codepoints, specifically ECT(0) and
      ECT(1), is a promising means of traffic identification for this
      purpose, but that technique is at variance with RFC 3168's




Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


      requirement that ECT(0)-marked traffic and ECT(1)-marked traffic
      not receive different treatment in the network.

   TCP Control Packets and Retransmissions:  RFC 3168 limits the use of
      ECN with TCP to data packets, excluding retransmissions.  With the
      successful deployment of ECN in large portions of the Internet,
      there is interest in extending the benefits of ECN to TCP control
      packets (e.g., SYNs) and retransmitted packets, e.g., as proposed
      in [I-D.bagnulo-tcpm-generalized-ecn].  This is at variance with
      RFC 3168's prohibition of use of ECN for TCP control packets and
      retransmitted packets.

   The scope of this memo is limited to these three areas of
   experimentation.  This memo expresses no view on the likely outcomes
   of the proposed experiments and does not specify the experiments in
   detail.  Additional experiments in these areas are possible, e.g., on
   use of ECN to support deployment of a protocol similar to DCTCP
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] beyond DCTCP's current applicability that is
   limited to data center environments.  The purpose of this memo is to
   remove constraints in standards track RFCs that stand in the way of
   these areas of experimentation.

3.  ECN Nonce and RFC 3540

   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),
   with the second codepoint used to support ECN nonce functionality to
   discourage receivers from exploiting ECN to improve their throughput
   at the expense of other network users, as specified in experimental
   RFC 3540 [RFC3540].  This section explains why RFC 3540 is being
   reclassified as Historic and makes associated updates to RFC 3168.

   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 behaviour 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, 4 set both ECT(0) and
   ECT(1) on data packets.  This might have been evidence of use of the
   ECN nonce by these 4 servers, but might equally have been due to re-
   marking of the ECN field by an erroneous middlebox or router.

   With the emergence of new experimental functionality that depends on
   use of the ECT(1) codepoint for other purposes, continuing to reserve
   that codepoint for the ECN nonce experiment is no longer justified.
   In addition, other approaches to discouraging receivers from
   exploiting ECN have emerged, see Appendix B.1 of



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].  Therefore, in support of ECN
   experimentation with the ECT(1) codepoint, this memo:

   o  Declares that the ECN nonce experiment [RFC3540] has concluded,
      and notes the absence of widespread deployment.

   o  Updates RFC 3168 [RFC3168] to remove discussion of the ECN nonce
      and use of ECT(1) for that nonce.

   The four primary updates to RFC 3168 that remove discussion of the
   ECN nonce and use of ECT(1) for that nonce are:

   1.  Remove the paragraph in Section 5 that immediately follows
       Figure 1; this paragraph discusses the ECN nonce as the
       motivation for two ECT codepoints.

   2.  Remove Section 11.2 "A Discussion of the ECN nonce." in its
       entirety.

   3.  Remove the last paragraph of Section 12, which states that ECT(1)
       may be used as part of the implementation of the ECN nonce.

   4.  Remove the first two paragraphs of Section 20.2, which discuss
       the ECN nonce and alternatives.  No changes are made to the rest
       of Section 20.2, which discusses alternate uses for the fourth
       ECN codepoint.

   Additional minor changes remove other mentions of the ECN nonce and
   implications that ECT(1) is intended for use by the ECN nonce; the
   specific text updates are omitted for brevity.

4.  Updates to RFC 3168

   The following subsections specify updates to RFC 3168 to enable the
   three areas of experimentation summarized in Section 2.

4.1.  Congestion Response Differences

   RFC 3168 specifies that senders respond identically to packet drops
   and ECN congestion indications.  ECN congestion indications are
   predominately originated by Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms
   in intermediate buffers.  AQM mechanisms are usually configured to
   maintain shorter queue lengths than non-AQM based mechanisms,
   particularly non-AQM drop-based mechanisms such as tail-drop, as AQM
   mechanisms indicate congestion before the queue overflows.  While the
   occurrence of loss does not easily enable the receiver to determine
   if AQM is used, the receipt of an ECN Congestion Experienced (CE)
   mark conveys a strong likelihood that AQM was used to manage the



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   bottleneck queue.  Hence an ECN congestion indication communicates a
   higher likelihood that a shorter queue exists at the network
   bottleneck node by comparison to a packet drop that indicates
   congestion [I-D.ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn].  This difference
   suggests that for congestion indicated by ECN, a different sender
   congestion response (e.g., reduce the response so that the sender
   backs off by a smaller amount) may be appropriate by comparison to
   the sender response to congestion indicated by loss.  However,
   section 5 of RFC 3168 specifies that:

      Upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE
      packet, the congestion control algorithms followed at the end-
      systems MUST be essentially the same as the congestion control
      response to a *single* dropped packet.

   This memo updates this RFC 3168 text to allow the congestion control
   response (including the TCP Sender's congestion control response) to
   a CE-marked packet to differ from the response to a dropped packet,
   provided that the changes from RFC 3168 are documented in an
   Experimental RFC.  The specific change to RFC 3168 is to insert the
   words "unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC" at the end
   of the sentence quoted above.

   RFC 4774 [RFC4774] quotes the above text from RFC 3168 as background,
   but does not impose requirements based on that text.  Therefore no
   update to RFC 4774 is required to enable this area of
   experimentation.

   Section 6.1.2 of RFC 3168 specifies that:

      If the sender receives an ECN-Echo (ECE) ACK packet (that is, an
      ACK packet with the ECN-Echo flag set in the TCP header), then the
      sender knows that congestion was encountered in the network on the
      path from the sender to the receiver.  The indication of
      congestion should be treated just as a congestion loss in non-
      ECN-Capable TCP.  That is, the TCP source halves the congestion
      window "cwnd" and reduces the slow start threshold "ssthresh".

   This memo also updates this RFC 3168 text to allow the congestion
   control response (including the TCP Sender's congestion control
   response) to a CE-marked packet to differ from the response to a
   dropped packet, provided that the changes from RFC 3168 are
   documented in an Experimental RFC.  The specific change to RFC 3168
   is to insert the words "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental
   RFC" at the beginning of the second sentence quoted above.






Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


4.2.  Congestion Marking Differences

   Taken to its limit, an AQM algorithm that uses ECN congestion
   indications can be configured to maintain very shallow queues,
   thereby reducing network latency by comparison to maintaining a
   larger queue.  Significantly more aggressive sender responses to ECN
   are needed to make effective use of such very shallow queues;
   Datacenter TCP (DCTCP) [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp] provides an example.  In
   this case, separate network node treatments are essential, both to
   prevent the aggressive low latency traffic starving conventional
   traffic (if present) and to prevent any conventional traffic
   disruption to any lower latency service that uses the very shallow
   queues.  Use of different ECN codepoints is a promising means of
   identifying these two classes of traffic to network nodes, and hence
   this area of experimentation is based on the use of the ECT(1)
   codepoint to request ECN congestion marking behavior in the network
   that differs from ECT(0) counterbalanced by use of a different IETF-
   approved congestion response to CE marks at the sender, e.g., as
   proposed in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].

   Section 5 of RFC 3168 specifies that:

      Routers treat the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints as equivalent.

   This memo updates RFC 3168 to allow routers to treat the ECT(0) and
   ECT(1) codepoints differently, provided that the changes from RFC
   3168 are documented in an Experimental RFC.  The specific change to
   RFC 3168 is to insert the words "unless otherwise specified by an
   Experimental RFC" at the end of the above sentence.

   When an AQM is configured to use ECN congestion indications to
   maintain a very shallow queue, congestion indications are marked on
   packets that would not have been dropped if ECN was not in use.
   Section 5 of RFC 3168 specifies that:

      For a router, the CE codepoint of an ECN-Capable packet SHOULD
      only be set if the router would otherwise have dropped the packet
      as an indication of congestion to the end nodes.  When the
      router's buffer is not yet full and the router is prepared to drop
      a packet to inform end nodes of incipient congestion, the router
      should first check to see if the ECT codepoint is set in that
      packet's IP header.  If so, then instead of dropping the packet,
      the router MAY instead set the CE codepoint in the IP header.

   This memo updates RFC 3168 to allow congestion indications that are
   not equivalent to drops, provided that the changes from RFC 3168 are
   documented in an Experimental RFC.  The specific change is to change




Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   "For a router," to "Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental
   RFC" at the beginning of the first sentence of the above paragraph.

   A larger update to RFC 3168 is necessary to enable sender usage of
   ECT(1) to request network congestion marking behavior that maintains
   very shallow queues at network nodes.  When using loss as a
   congestion signal, the number of signals provided should be reduced
   to a minimum and hence only presence or absence of congestion is
   communicated.  In contrast, ECN can provide a richer signal, e.g., to
   indicate the current level of congestion, without the disadvantage of
   a larger number of packet losses.  A proposed experiment in this
   area, Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (L4S)
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] significantly increases the CE marking
   probability for ECT(1)-marked traffic in a fashion that would
   interact badly with existing sender congestion response functionality
   because that functionality assumes that the network marks ECT packets
   as frequently as it would drop Not-ECT packets.  If network traffic
   that uses such a conventional sender congestion response were to
   encounter L4S's increased marking probability (and hence rate) at a
   network bottleneck queue, the resulting traffic throughput is likely
   to be much less than intended for the level of congestion at the
   bottleneck queue.

   To avoid that interaction, this memo reserves ECT(1) for
   experimentation, initially for L4S.  The specific update to Section 5
   of RFC 3168 is to remove the following two paragraphs:

      Senders are free to use either the ECT(0) or the ECT(1) codepoint
      to indicate ECT, on a packet-by-packet basis.

      The use of both the two codepoints for ECT, ECT(0) and ECT(1), is
      motivated primarily by the desire to allow mechanisms for the data
      sender to verify that network elements are not erasing the CE
      codepoint, and that data receivers are properly reporting to the
      sender the receipt of packets with the CE codepoint set, as
      required by the transport protocol.  Guidelines for the senders
      and receivers to differentiate between the ECT(0) and ECT(1)
      codepoints will be addressed in separate documents, for each
      transport protocol.  In particular, this document does not address
      mechanisms for TCP end-nodes to differentiate between the ECT(0)
      and ECT(1) codepoints.  Protocols and senders that only require a
      single ECT codepoint SHOULD use ECT(0).

   and replace it with this paragraph:

      Protocols and senders MUST use the ECT(0) codepoint to indicate
      ECT unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC.  Guidelines
      for senders and receivers to differentiate between the ECT(0) and



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


      ECT(1) codepoints will be addressed in separate documents, for
      each transport protocol.  In particular, this document does not
      address mechanisms for TCP end-nodes to differentiate between the
      ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints.

   Congestion Marking Differences experiments SHOULD modify the network
   behavior for ECT(1)-marked traffic rather than ECT(0)-marked traffic
   if network behavior for only one ECT codepoint is modified.
   Congestion Marking Differences experiments MUST NOT modify the
   network behavior for ECT(0)-marked traffic in a fashion that requires
   changes to sender congestion response to obtain desired network
   behavior.  If a Congestion Marking Differences experiment modifies
   the network behavior for ECT(1)-marked traffic, e.g., CE-marking
   behavior, in a fashion that requires changes to sender congestion
   response to obtain desired network behavior, then the Experimental
   RFC for that experiment MUST specify:

   o  The sender congestion response to CE marking in the network, and

   o  Router behavior changes, or the absence thereof, in forwarding CE-
      marked packets that are part of the experiment.

   In addition, until the conclusion of the L4S experiment, use of
   ECT(1) in IETF RFCs is not appropriate, as the IETF may decide to
   allocate ECT(1) exclusively for L4S usage if the L4S experiment is
   successful.

   In addition, this memo updates RFC 3168 to remove discussion of the
   ECN nonce, as noted in Section 3 above.

4.3.  TCP Control Packets and Retransmissions

   With the successful use of ECN for traffic in large portions of the
   Internet, there is interest in extending the benefits of ECN to TCP
   control packets (e.g., SYNs) and retransmitted packets, e.g., as
   proposed by ECN++ [I-D.bagnulo-tcpm-generalized-ecn].

   RFC 3168 prohibits use of ECN for TCP control packets and
   retransmitted packets in a number of places:

   o  "To ensure the reliable delivery of the congestion indication of
      the CE codepoint, an ECT codepoint MUST NOT be set in a packet
      unless the loss of that packet in the network would be detected by
      the end nodes and interpreted as an indication of congestion."
      (Section 5.2)

   o  "A host MUST NOT set ECT on SYN or SYN-ACK packets."
      (Section 6.1.1)



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   o  "pure acknowledgement packets (e.g., packets that do not contain
      any accompanying data) MUST be sent with the not-ECT codepoint."
      (Section 6.1.4)

   o  "This document specifies ECN-capable TCP implementations MUST NOT
      set either ECT codepoint (ECT(0) or ECT(1)) in the IP header for
      retransmitted data packets, and that the TCP data receiver SHOULD
      ignore the ECN field on arriving data packets that are outside of
      the receiver's current window."  (Section 6.1.5)

   o  "the TCP data sender MUST NOT set either an ECT codepoint or the
      CWR bit on window probe packets."  (Section 6.1.6)

   This memo updates RFC 3168 to allow the use of ECT codepoints on SYN
   and SYN-ACK packets, pure acknowledgement packets, window probe
   packets and retransmissions of packets that were originally sent with
   an ECT codepoint, provided that the changes from RFC 3168 are
   documented in an Experimental RFC.  The specific change to RFC 3168
   is to insert the words "unless otherwise specified by an Experimental
   RFC" at the end of each sentence quoted above.

   In addition, beyond requiring TCP senders not to set ECT on TCP
   control packets and retransmitted packets, RFC 3168 is silent on
   whether it is appropriate for a network element, e.g. a firewall, to
   discard such a packet as invalid.  For this area of ECN
   experimentation to be useful, middleboxes ought not to do that,
   therefore RFC 3168 is updated by adding the following text to the end
   of Section 6.1.1.1 on Middlebox Issues:

      Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, middleboxes
      SHOULD NOT discard TCP control packets and retransmitted TCP
      packets solely because the ECN field in the IP header does not
      contain Not-ECT.  An exception to this requirement occurs in
      responding to an ongoing attack.  For example, as part of the
      response, it may be appropriate to drop more ECT-marked TCP SYN
      packets than TCP SYN packets marked with not-ECT.  Any such
      exceptional discarding of TCP control packets and retransmitted
      TCP packets in response to an attack MUST NOT be done routinely in
      the absence of an attack and SHOULD only be done if it is
      determined that the ECT capability is contributing to the attack.

4.4.  Effective Congestion Control is Required

   Congestion control remains an important aspect of the Internet
   architecture [RFC2914].  Any Experimental RFC that takes advantage of
   this memo's updates to any RFC is required to discuss the congestion
   control implications of the experiment(s) in order to provide




Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   assurance that deployment of the experiment(s) does not pose a
   congestion-based threat to the operation of the Internet.

5.  ECN for RTP Updates to RFC 6679

   RFC 6679 [RFC6679] specifies use of ECN for RTP traffic; it allows
   use of both the ECT(0) and ECT(1) codepoints, and provides the
   following guidance on use of these codepoints in section 7.3.1 :

      The sender SHOULD mark packets as ECT(0) unless the receiver
      expresses a preference for ECT(1) or for a random ECT value using
      the "ect" parameter in the "a=ecn-capable-rtp:" attribute.

   The Congestion Marking Differences area of experimentation increases
   the potential consequences of using ECT(1) instead of ECT(0), and
   hence the above guidance is updated by adding the following two
   sentences:

      Random ECT values MUST NOT be used, as that may expose RTP to
      differences in network treatment of traffic marked with ECT(1) and
      ECT(0) and differences in associated endpoint congestion
      responses, e.g., as proposed in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id].  In
      addition, ECT(0) MUST be used unless otherwise specified in an
      Experimental RFC.

   Section 7.3.3 of RFC 6679 specifies RTP's response to receipt of CE
   marked packets as being identical to the response to dropped packets:

      The reception of RTP packets with ECN-CE marks in the IP header is
      a notification that congestion is being experienced.  The default
      reaction on the reception of these ECN-CE-marked packets MUST be
      to provide the congestion control algorithm with a congestion
      notification that triggers the algorithm to react as if packet
      loss had occurred.  There should be no difference in congestion
      response if ECN-CE marks or packet drops are detected.

   In support of Congestion Response Differences experimentation, this
   memo updates this text in a fashion similar to RFC 3168 to allow the
   RTP congestion control response to a CE-marked packet to differ from
   the response to a dropped packet, provided that the changes from RFC
   6679 are documented in an Experimental RFC.  The specific change to
   RFC 6679 is to insert the words "Unless otherwise specified by an
   Experimental RFC" and reformat the last two sentences to be subject
   to that condition, i.e.:

      The reception of RTP packets with ECN-CE marks in the IP header is
      a notification that congestion is being experienced.  Unless
      otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC:



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


      *  The default reaction on the reception of these ECN-CE-marked
         packets MUST be to provide the congestion control algorithm
         with a congestion notification that triggers the algorithm to
         react as if packet loss had occurred.

      *  There should be no difference in congestion response if ECN-CE
         marks or packet drops are detected.

   The second sentence of the immediately following paragraph in RFC
   6679 requires a related update:

      Other reactions to ECN-CE may be specified in the future,
      following IETF Review.  Detailed designs of such additional
      reactions MUST be specified in a Standards Track RFC and be
      reviewed to ensure they are safe for deployment under any
      restrictions specified.

   The update is to change "Standards Track RFC" to "Standards Track RFC
   or Experimental RFC" for consistency with the first update.

6.  ECN for DCCP Updates to RFCs 4341, 4342 and 5622

   The specifications of the three DCCP Congestion Control IDs (CCIDs) 2
   [RFC4341], 3 [RFC4342] and 4 [RFC5622] contain broadly the same
   wording as follows:

      each DCCP-Data and DCCP-DataAck packet is sent as ECN Capable with
      either the ECT(0) or the ECT(1) codepoint set.

   This memo updates these sentences in each of the three RFCs as
   follows:

      each DCCP-Data and DCCP-DataAck packet is sent as ECN Capable.
      Unless otherwise specified by an Experimental RFC, such DCCP
      senders MUST set the ECT(0) codepoint.

   In support of Congestion Marking Differences experimentation (as
   noted in Section 3), this memo also updates all three of these RFCs
   to remove discussion of the ECN nonce.  The specific text updates are
   omitted for brevity.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The content of this draft, including the specific portions of RFC
   3168 that are updated draws heavily from
   [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response], whose authors are gratefully
   acknowledged.  The authors of the Internet Drafts describing the
   experiments have motivated the production of this memo - their



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   interest in innovation is welcome and heartily acknowledged.  Colin
   Perkins suggested updating RFC 6679 on RTP and provided guidance on
   where to make the updates.

   The draft has been improved as a result of comments from a number of
   reviewers, including Brian Carpenter, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry
   Fairhurst, Ingemar Johansson, Naeem Khademi, Mirja Kuehlewind, Karen
   Nielsen, Hilarie Orman and Michael Welzl.  Bob Briscoe's thorough
   review of an early version of this draft resulted in numerous
   improvements including addition of the updates to the DCCP RFCs.

8.  IANA Considerations

   To reflect the reclassification of RFC 3540 as Historic, IANA is
   requested to update the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Header
   Flags registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-header-flags/
   tcp-header-flags.xhtml#tcp-header-flags-1) to remove the registration
   of bit 7 as the NS (Nonce Sum) bit and add an annotation to the
   registry to state that bit 7 was used by Historic RFC 3540 as the NS
   (Nonce Sum) bit.

9.  Security Considerations

   As a process memo that only removes limitations on proposed
   experiments, there are no protocol security considerations.  Security
   considerations for the proposed experiments are discussed in the
   Internet-Drafts that propose them.

   However, effective congestion control is crucial to the continued
   operation of the Internet, and hence this memo places the
   responsibility for not breaking Internet congestion control on the
   experiments and the experimenters who propose them.  This
   responsibility includes the requirement to discuss congestion control
   implications in an Experimental RFC for each experiment, as stated in
   Section 4.4; review of that discussion by the IETF community and the
   IESG prior to RFC publication is intended to provide assurance that
   each experiment does not break Internet congestion control.

   See Appendix B.1 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] for discussion of
   alternatives to the ECN nonce.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References







Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC3540]  Spring, N., Wetherall, D., and D. Ely, "Robust Explicit
              Congestion Notification (ECN) Signaling with Nonces",
              RFC 3540, DOI 10.17487/RFC3540, June 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3540>.

   [RFC4341]  Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
              Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
              Congestion Control", RFC 4341, DOI 10.17487/RFC4341, March
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4341>.

   [RFC4342]  Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
              Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4342, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4342>.

   [RFC5622]  Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
              Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate
              Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)", RFC 5622,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5622, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5622>.

   [RFC6679]  Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
              and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              for RTP over UDP", RFC 6679, DOI 10.17487/RFC6679, August
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6679>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bagnulo-tcpm-generalized-ecn]
              Bagnulo, M. and B. Briscoe, "ECN++: Adding Explicit
              Congestion Notification (ECN) to TCP Control Packets",
              draft-bagnulo-tcpm-generalized-ecn-04 (work in progress),
              May 2017.



Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn]
              Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst,
              "TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)", draft-ietf-tcpm-
              alternativebackoff-ecn-01 (work in progress), May 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-dctcp]
              Bensley, S., Thaler, D., Balasubramanian, P., Eggert, L.,
              and G. Judd, "Datacenter TCP (DCTCP): TCP Congestion
              Control for Datacenters", draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-10 (work
              in progress), August 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id]
              Schepper, K. and B. Briscoe, "Identifying Modified
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Semantics for
              Ultra-Low Queuing Delay", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-00
              (work in progress), May 2017.

   [I-D.khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response]
              Khademi, N., Welzl, M., Armitage, G., and G. Fairhurst,
              "Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
              Specification to Allow IETF Experimentation", draft-
              khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01 (work in progress), July
              2016.

   [RFC4774]  Floyd, S., "Specifying Alternate Semantics for the
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field", BCP 124,
              RFC 4774, DOI 10.17487/RFC4774, November 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4774>.

   [Trammell15]
              Trammell, B., Kuehlewind, M., Boppart, D., Learmonth, I.,
              Fairhurst, G., and R. Scheffenegger, "Enabling Internet-
              Wide Deployment of Explicit Congestion Notification".

              In Proc Passive & Active Measurement (PAM'15) Conference
              (2015)

Appendix A.  Change History

   [To be removed before RFC publication.]

   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).

   Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-01 to -02:




Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   o  Generalize to describe rationale for areas of experimentation,
      with less focus on individual experiments

   o  Add ECN terminology section

   o  Change name of "ECT Differences" experimentation area to
      "Congestion Marking Differences"

   o  Add overlooked RFC 3168 modification to Section 4.1

   o  Clarify text for Experimental RFC exception to ECT(1) non-usage
      requirement

   o  Add explanation of exception to "SHOULD NOT drop" requirement in
      4.3

   o  Rework RFC 3540 status change text to provide rationale for a
      separate status change document that makes RFC 3540 Historic.
      Don't obsolete RFC 3540.

   o  Significant editorial changes based on reviews by Mirja
      Kuehlewind, Michael Welzl and Bob Briscoe.

   Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-02 to -03:

   o  Remove change history prior to WG adoption.

   o  Update L4S draft reference to reflect TSVWG adoption of draft.

   o  Change the "SHOULD" for DCCP sender use of ECT(0) to a "MUST"
      (overlooked in earlier editing).

   o  Other minor edits.

   Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03 to -04:

   o  Change name of "Generalized ECN" experimentation area to "TCP
      Control Packets and Retransmissions."

   o  Add IANA Considerations text to request removal of the
      registration of the NS bit in the TCP header.

   Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-04 to -05:

   o  Minor editorial changes from Area Director review

   Changes from draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05 to -06:




Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             ECN Experimentation            September 2017


   o  Add summary of RFC 3168 changes to remove the ECN nonce, and use
      lower-case "nonce" instead of "Nonce" to match RFC 3168 usage.

   o  Add security considerations sentence to indicate that review of
      Experimental RFCs prior to publication approval is the means to
      ensure that congestion control is not broken by experiments.

   o  Other minor editorial changes from IETF Last Call

Author's Address

   David Black
   Dell EMC
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA  01748
   USA

   Email: david.black@dell.com

































Black                    Expires March 24, 2018                [Page 18]