Subject: [Dclc] Generic Feedback Reflector for Low Latency uses of ECN

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:50:24 +0100

DCLC folks,

This is to notify this list of chartered /IETF/ work going on in the 
TCP maintenance (TCPM) w-g that is very relevant to the Data Centre 
Latency Control /research/ group. There is a WG last call in progress 
on the requirements (see later).

The original problem we addressed was motivated by a flaw in the 
feedback scheme in DCTCP and the needs of ConEx. This led to the TCPM 
w-g chartering work on requirements for an experimental update to the 
TCP wire protocol.

This is probably a once-in-a-decade chance to update the TCP wire 
protocol for ECN. So we're looking for feedback from the research 
community on whether it is generic enough for all the ideas 
researchers might have for using it (I'm working on 5 myself).

We have designed it to be a generic feedback reflector that will 
allow new sender behaviours to be deployed unilaterally without 
having to deploy a new receiver behaviour each time too. This will 
help in private community of interest networks and multi-tenant data 
centres, as well as the public Internet.

==Materials==
1) The WG last call on requirements has started and will end on Mon 
21 Jul (the day of the TCPM meeting). Previously we submitted a minor 
update to the requirements (including an appendix on the flaw in DCTCP):
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-06>

2) We also submitted a candidate protocol spec:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-tcpm-accurate-ecn-03>
This is a significant revision of the previous draft (grown from 14 
to 55 pages).

Please ensure you send review comments on either to the /TCPM/ list.

We will introduce all this in a slot in the DCLC meeting.

Bob

>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:20:37 +0100
>To: =?gb2312?B?tcvB6cDyL0xpbmdsaSBEZW5n?= <[email-masked]>
>From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [Dclc] Toronto meeting
>Cc: "'dclc'" <[email-masked]>, Richard Scheffenegger <[email-masked]>, 
>Mirja KUEHLEWIND <[email-masked]>
>
>Lingli,
>
>Myself, Richard Scheffeneger (NetApp) & Mirja Kuehlewind (Stuttgart 
>Uni) are about to post a revised draft on our proposed approach to 
>replace TCP's ECN feedback.
>
>It would probably be worth a reasonably long slot to present this 
>(20mins or more?). We will also be asking to present it in the tcpm 
>where it addresses a chartered IETF work item, but we ought to 
>present its "research enablement" angle in more depth in the IRTF.
>
>The original problem we addressed was motivated by the flawed 
>feedback scheme in DCTCP and the needs of ConEx.
>
>However, we have designed it to be a generic feedback reflector that 
>will allow new sender behaviours to be deployed unilaterally without 
>having to deploy new receiver behaviour each time too. We're looking 
>for feedback on whether it is generic enough for all the ideas 
>people might have for using it (I'm working on 5 myself).
>
>
>Bob
>

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT