Subject: [tcpm] Seeking feedback for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:04:38 -0800

Hi,
draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn and draft-ietf-tcpm-generalized-ecn have been
discussed for a while.
tcpm chairs are now thinking that they are getting matured and becoming
ready for WGLC .
However, we also think there are several points to be clarified beforehand.

In order to proceed the current situation, we would like to ask the
community to give some feedback on the following points.
We will highly appreciate your inputs.

A: Allocating bit 7 for draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
   The draft requests the allocation for bit 7 in TCP header (ex NS bit)
for this proposal.
   However, the intended status of the draft is experimental, which may not
be well aligned with the description in RFC2780.

  The chairs would like to check the following points.
      A1: If we can have a consensus to allocate bit 7 for this
experimental draft. Or, if there is any other ways to allow the allocation
(e.g. using other documents)
      A2: if we decide to allocate the bit, what we should do when the
experiment fails.

B: Overlaps with some congestion experienced proposals
   It seems that some congestion experienced proposals
(draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce
and draft-morton-tsvwg-sce) have similarities with these drafts.

   The chairs would like to check the following points for this.
     B1: The two proposals won't conflict each other. We can discuss and
proceed these proposals separately without any potential risks.
     B2: it seems that SCE and L4S may have some conflicts, but this will
not affect the discussions for AccECN and ECN++.
     B3: if we allocate the bit 7 for AccECN, it is still allowed for SCE
proposals to use the bit or it will be prohibited.

   BTW, just in case. please avoid initiating technical discussions and try
to discuss how to proceed the drafts in this thread.
--
Yoshi on behalf of tcpm chairs