From dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com Mon Feb 12 09:17:36 2024 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5695BC151062; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RcRrJfOtXCyY; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C688C14F697; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-51165a488baso4516011e87.2; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707758248; x=1708363048; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v31gR7Vs4i4tCVg1e3dROUDPLysPgAR55UWpwhZnLqY=; b=YKCq8ZellD8I1VcoXmh0E3ZoJY6R1qcBi3PG1yoPGL2QmXEyu3s11mtzoWDdIFf9de NGKkoixde9ffWiIlJLKXxXUgKvgnCuXtd2vseAWbhJQQcLNU3woxZCfFONSdgnwFAlBS CVffpomI1rt/sBoRuL9d5dasqYIAoMjaB7rZLNUSeLEBpgX7aN1VL00yCGTok4Pw1ApN eU5gc0G56AmQ5gFHK/WakfiX6qoWYTVhaXyYX0xKdR9bPIcuvrSLyO2yEqbLCaduk/wn Pk+PkEoS5WoFYItBxEXAsScNSXLBdOldJ6/p6cjSw40aXv/lswC/xaUSQkzHsrJETSMf vh+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707758248; x=1708363048; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v31gR7Vs4i4tCVg1e3dROUDPLysPgAR55UWpwhZnLqY=; b=kqVaTxZZEOm9XunK6L1/24hQboXzZTmJBf4mNJiKwFS32bp9f5DxDvcV83mmnD1J4N WcAy8F6oHX9U6AiK5YXKjIhZln+e3j53ys8cEGZTgyzyhRP0Wm/DJHab3gYzayCpQpPb nTvWPfd6PTMI7HFUuCDHm6RZJ69e3aUGFjzeMEYTwo3cgTUlMLiMNcq1MlHelZ1HHkjf BSQKpinQd4WznvUhJUCpKa9uiJbs1tLfh33joLzT0W+61zkS0h73r7qQgGNdW2nN4fZe ESBCHqcmLUzTvlwluOFqIvgs+1+8ym9PO5TJmIUXwhrUtV9kaIwAyOlgvJlqdbT5HtX0 WYOg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX4mpqnFGup/ehV7cDejzvm+Ks9m3F4Dblc1T9Yxvl5TRuChx9dro8mWuR5xigA3UKrOo0q3kbXix6qsEydlKzT2ANR5tIKN4nA4WgdkghQJ4PvpXhlGUfrQZFadZLuokRiIhta1r/Q/k+D+JFbZVE7waqmmk4tyFik1/kNeuk= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxrhvj5vsA+UvVa1Pm9x1Ae4FOpHAGBa9qOgFvL2hsCV7K1sxi2 MkRMa/kXoKYszzEBjVVzBj5RUbOy1X4QexJ/JbJjsR0wVU9c/H1f9bZt/M1gLMMWot4l/9dQhU8 MMnwP2DQIftMZe5wbPpxueoG0nnGeu9ykPwM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEz4ED4e1VnvtlXFUUTh9xTAAQCwfk/vMi2tARGjK9pPgd/WJEyO39NS94AhZjS+sEHzIUqOfBnrDzPwjo9Wjk= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4a8d:0:b0:511:6de6:713b with SMTP id l13-20020ac24a8d000000b005116de6713bmr4588834lfp.61.1707758247404; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <170775297536.35504.11851674933267972962@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <170775297536.35504.11851674933267972962@ietfa.amsl.com> From: David Schinazi Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:17:15 -0800 Message-ID: To: Robert Wilton Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b2e840061132730e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:17:36 -0000 --000000000000b2e840061132730e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rob, As you correctly point out, this document contains two parts: 1) the bits required for interop (wire format and required handling) 2) the algorithm suggested to use the bits from (1) Conceptually, (1) is standards track and (2) is experimental. However, RFCs can only have one track for the entire document. Because of this, the WG landed on having the document be standards track, while noting that (2) has not been proven mathematically. The important justification here is that we want other standards track documents to be able to depend on this extension. I'll note that (2) here is in better state than many other algorithms I've seen in other standards track documents; the warning disclaimer mainly comes from the fact that one of the authors likes his mathematical proofs and isn't fully satisfied with an algorithm that only happens to work really well in real deployments, instead of that plus a mathematical proof. You can find this conversation on the WG mailing list here [1]. Thanks, David [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/ZG-6lUophG59gwfC772myVzlicY= / On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:49=E2=80=AFAM Robert Wilton via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positio= ns/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > Thanks for this document. I've balloted "discuss" on this document > because I > would like to have a discussion with the responsible AD and other ADs as = to > whether Standards Track is the right classification for this document > based on > the text below, where it seems like a key part of the solution is only > experimental. I appreciate that this document is also defining new TLVs, > but > the pertinent IANA registry policy is only specification required, and > there is > also reserved IANA values for experimental TLVs that could also be used, = if > appropriate. > > (1) p 7, sec 4. RTT-based route selection > > In this section, we describe an algorithm that integrates smoothing > and hysteresis and has been shown to behave well both in simulation > and experimentally over the Internet [DELAY-BASED]. While > implementations MAY use this algorithm, it is considered > experimental, since we do not currently have a theoretical > understanding of its behaviour, and in particular we do not know by > how much it could be simplified without impairing its functionality. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > babel@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel > --000000000000b2e840061132730e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Rob,

As you correctly point out, thi= s document contains two parts:
1) the bits required for interop (= wire format and required handling)
2) the algorithm suggested to = use the bits from (1)

Conceptually, (1) is standar= ds=C2=A0track and (2) is experimental.
However, RFCs can only hav= e one track for the entire document.
Because of this, the WG land= ed on having the document be
standards track, while noting that (= 2) has not been proven
mathematically. The important justificatio= n here is that we want
other standards track documents to be able= to depend on this
extension. I'll note that (2) here is in b= etter state than many
other algorithms I've seen in other sta= ndards track documents;
the warning disclaimer mainly comes from = the fact that one of the
authors likes his mathematical proofs an= d isn't fully satisfied=C2=A0with
an algorithm that only happ= ens to work really well in=C2=A0real
deployments,=C2=A0instead of= that plus a mathematical=C2=A0proof.
You can find this conversat= ion on the WG mailing list here [1].

Thanks,
=
David




On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:49=E2=80=AFAM Robert Wilton via = Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>= ; wrote:
Robert = Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://= www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra= ft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.=C2=A0 I've balloted "discuss" on th= is document because I
would like to have a discussion with the responsible AD and other ADs as to=
whether Standards Track is the right classification for this document based= on
the text below, where it seems like a key part of the solution is only
experimental.=C2=A0 I appreciate that this document is also defining new TL= Vs, but
the pertinent IANA registry policy is only specification required, and ther= e is
also reserved IANA values for experimental TLVs that could also be used, if=
appropriate.

(1) p 7, sec 4.=C2=A0 RTT-based route selection

=C2=A0 =C2=A0In this section, we describe an algorithm that integrates smoo= thing
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and hysteresis and has been shown to behave well both in simul= ation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and experimentally over the Internet [DELAY-BASED].=C2=A0 Whil= e
=C2=A0 =C2=A0implementations MAY use this algorithm, it is considered
=C2=A0 =C2=A0experimental, since we do not currently have a theoretical
=C2=A0 =C2=A0understanding of its behaviour, and in particular we do not kn= ow by
=C2=A0 =C2=A0how much it could be simplified without impairing its function= ality.

Regards,
Rob





_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
babel@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
--000000000000b2e840061132730e--