Problem Statement and Requirements for Increased Accuracy in Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Feedback
RFC 7560

[Ballot comment]
In the ack section, there is a statement that says,
  "The views expressed here are solely those of the
  authors."

I know this is stated as to ensure it is not necessarily the views of the sponsoring project.  If this will be listed as having consensus (not done yet), should this statement be reworded to avoid conflict between the consensus statement?

This is just a non-blocking comment for the AD to consider.

[Ballot comment]
This text:

5.2.  Using Other Header Bits

  Any proposal to use such bits would need to check the likelihood that
  some middleboxes might discard or 'normalize' the currently unused
  flag bits or a non-zero Urgent Pointer when the Urgent Flag is
  cleared.  Assignment of any of these bits would then require an IETF
  standards action.
 
doesn't read quite right to me. Just reversing the logic, I'm getting "no IETF standards action is required unless middleboxes are twiddling the bits you're using for your proposal". Is that what you mean? Or is this just while experimenting?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Problem Statement and Requirements for a More Accurate ECN Feedback) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Problem Statement and Requirements for a More Accurate ECN Feedback'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is a mechanism where network
  nodes can mark IP packets instead of dropping them to indicate
  congestion to the end-points.  An ECN-capable receiver will feed this
  information back to the sender.  ECN is specified for TCP in such a
  way that it can only feed back one congestion signal per Round-Trip
  Time (RTT).  In contrast, ECN for other transport protocols, such as
  RTP/UDP and SCTP, is specified with more accurate ECN feedback.
  Recent new TCP mechanisms (like ConEx or DCTCP) need more accurate
  ECN feedback in the case where more than one marking is received in
  one RTT.  This document specifies requirements for an update to the
  TCP protocol to provide more accurate ECN feedback.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(This writeup follows the alternate format as provided at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate)


1. Summary

Document shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. Responsible AD is Martin Stiemerling.

Traditionally the explicit congestion notification can deliver only one congestion signal in a round-trip time with TCP. This Informational document motivates the case for delivering more accurate congestion information for TCP. It discusses high-level requirements for methods for delivering more accurate congestion information, but does not specify such mechanism. Therefore Informational is considered appropriate document type.

2. Review and Consensus

The document was reviewed by a few WG participants in its different phases, also during the WGLC. There has been no controversy over it. TCPM chairs believe the document is stable and has gone through a sufficient review, and is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property

There are no IPR disclosures on this document, and the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR related to this document.

The draft discusses the possible solution space and related earlier proposals, some of which have disclosed IPRs (draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-01, draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-03). These disclosures can be found on the IPR page based on the respective draft names.

4. Other points

None. There were no issues based on the checklist provided with the alternative write-up instructions.

(This writeup follows the alternate format as provided at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate)


1. Summary

Document shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. Responsible AD is Martin Stiemerling.

Traditionally the explicit congestion notification can deliver only one congestion signal in a round-trip time with TCP. This Informational document motivates the case for delivering more accurate congestion information for TCP. It discusses high-level requirements for methods for delivering more accurate congestion information, but does not specify such mechanism. Therefore Informational is considered appropriate document type.

2. Review and Consensus

The document was reviewed by a few WG participants in its different phases, also during the WGLC. There has been no controversy over it. TCPM chairs believe the document is stable and has gone through a sufficient review, and is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property

There are no IPR disclosures on this document, and the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of undisclosed IPR related to this document.

The draft discusses the possible solution space and related earlier proposals, some of which have disclosed IPRs (draft-bensley-tcpm-dctcp-01, draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-03). These disclosures can be found on the IPR page based on the respective draft names.

4. Other points

None. There were no issues based on the checklist provided with the alternative write-up instructions.