Re: [EToSat] New Version Notification for draft-kuhn-quic-4-sat-04.txt

Good that we have recordings then :-)

I think ICCRG is the right place for that discussion. We mainly had this in the tsvarea because this was something brought up by the IAB to get IETF input but part of the conclusion I think is also that ICCRG is the better place for this work! :-)

Mirja

> On 24. Apr 2020, at 15:52, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Mirja, 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:59 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Christian gave exactly this talk a little later in a tsvarea session. I think that was what he was referring to.
> 
> Ah, at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-105-tsvarea/. The IETF meeting where I had a concussion at 3 AM on Monday morning (not kidding, it's surprising I remember anything from that week) - thanks for the pointer!
> 
> I think Christian's question about how much we should care about fairness/selfishness, and what that means, is still open, still interesting, and still better had on a mailing list with a broader stated purpose than "encryption over Satellite". Is TSVAREA still the right place for that discussion? If not, where?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> > On 24. Apr 2020, at 13:01, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Top posting ...
> > 
> > When Christian sent out his paper on implications of pluggable congestion control in user space, Mirja and I talked about having him talk about it at TSVAREA. I don't remember why that didn't happen, but ISTM that's still a really important question, and having that discussion on a non-WG mailing list for a rather narrow topic isn't going to get the attention it deserves.
> > 
> > Christian, do you want to ask your question on TSVAREA? If not, I'd be happy to.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Spencer
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 04:03 Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
> > On 24/04/2020 00:26, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > I also have a puzzling question regarding the purpose of the tests. The
> > > TCP Eval draft follows the classic approach that Internet stability
> > > depends on well behaved transports, and that this good behavior should
> > > be documented by a large battery of tests. I got some fairly consistent
> > > feedback last year, after worrying that free wheeling innovation in
> > > transport protocols might end up having bad consequences for the
> > > Internet. A number of distinguished colleagues lined up at the mic and
> > > explained that my fears were exaggerated, that the Internet was very
> > > robust, and that I should not worry. So, which is which? Should I worry
> > > about consequences for others, or is selfishness OK?
> > 
> > Those distinguished colleagues have forgotten, or weren't around,
> > for the congestion-collapse phase of the Internet (around 1990?)
> > which drove the development of congestion control.
> > 
> > We only have robustness because of such consideration.  Selfishness
> > is not ok.
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> >   Jeremy
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > EToSat mailing list
> > EToSat@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat
> > _______________________________________________
> > EToSat mailing list
> > EToSat@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat
> 