Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Mon, 11 November 2019 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0C61208B3; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:23:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mwq9ECkOumbg; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45FF31208C6; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:22:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9hJPq20EAKxinmOMPzdKV3FaSZU+WyHmxYdYnVxz2p0=; b=HFbtqAnbxy1P6hMlClqz4jnBv +CRXlcgtNaDfe2etyevc5xpv6jOdf+wGdd9WIlKVnupM0RqsXKy7oD2qbMEUh9KVmEKteAdRtsVi0 3nLogPujqezVvI8MWjTIItJsE7ZiL3NmoY1B17f0RikUfDYQlt/xyRF7VepjeG0U9IJ8YbgMHxdQQ 78cQHJ5QZqXTnYRQTkG/Q6XSJfXSzIbfTGfI42qtWAZtfFSBe9sksjgCHtnV39+ceKlL5WVasRtQw BIc7iAJLbcwMa9Oe2oOgFQkOAQGHsnWjw36PLywi8opFWmOzGH9naJ4udWxPSkZeN7V3t1SMZtDFm yRe3vJ/cQ==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=55888 helo=[192.168.0.11]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1iUBWr-00071Y-1W; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:22:57 +0000
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net> <0F339755-A4C6-486B-8751-23DFB50C7280@gmx.de> <3488c7a8-0b78-f7f9-bb9d-64062e401e59@bobbriscoe.net> <985D623F-8B16-4DB0-A675-5A726EF6753F@gmx.de>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <73220cb8-2e36-cf87-276a-f67c425a7752@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:22:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <985D623F-8B16-4DB0-A675-5A726EF6753F@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6A93D923AD2A073FFD5359DD"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/3_Fmtv-eRk-yZA6IiXKauCSPUbE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:23:10 -0000

Sebastien,


      Chambers (British English)


classic adj *1* made of or belonging to the highest quality; established 
as the best. *2* entirely typical. *3* simple, neat and elegant, 
especially in a traditional style. noun *1* an established work of 
literature. *2* an outstanding example of its type. *3* something, eg an 
item of clothing, which will always last, irrespective of fashions and 
fads • /the little black dress, a classic of the 50s/. *4* (*Classic*) a 
celebrated annual sporting event, especially a horse race. See also the 
Classics <https://chambers.co.uk/search?xref=21C07352&query=the 
Classics&title=21st>. *classically* adverb *1* in a classic or classical 
way. *2* so as to be classical.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from Latin /classicus/ relating to classes, especially 
the best.


      Merriam Webster (US English)


clas·​sic | \ ˈkla-sik
1a *: *serving as a standard of excellence *: *of recognized value 
classic literary works a classic case study on hysteria
b *: *traditional 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditional>, enduring 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enduring> classic designs
c *: *characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year 
a classic suit
2 *: *of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans or their culture 
*: *classical <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classical>
3a *: *historically memorable a classic battle
b *: *noted because of special literary or historical associations Paris 
is the classic refuge of expatriates
4a *: *authentic <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic>, 
authoritative <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritative> 
a classic study of eyewitness accounts
b *: *typical <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typical> a 
classic example of chicanery a classic error

Responses inline...


On 06/11/2019 23:04, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 19:12, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sebastien,
>>
>> On 06/11/2019 07:18, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> On November 6, 2019 1:22:44 AM GMT+01:00, Bob Briscoe
>>> <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael, Rod,
>>>>
>>>> Altho non-L4S is a reasonable idea, I think it has more of a negative
>>>> connotation than classic.
>>>>
>>>          [SM] It does have the advantage though of being a testable, with classic all we know is you are talking about something that came before.
>> Which is a good starting point, because that's what is intended.
> 	[SM] I know that this is what you intend, but it is the test of time that makes classics classics, no amount of wishful thinking of the new-kid-on-the-block will relegate the reigning champion into classic mode, your solution really has to a) be better, and more importantly b) supersede that champion in the first place.
[BB] Not at all. Because classic has no hint of inferior. Quite the 
opposite according to the dictionaries.

This is an excellent demonstration of how any term, even a good positive 
one, attracts a negative connotation as soon as it is used to mean "the 
things that are claimed to be improved on". This says to me that the 
quest for a better word than classic will be fruitless.

Just like how kids quickly started to use the word 'special' as a term 
of abuse soon after the phrase "children with special needs" was 
introduced by well-meaning people.

>
>
>> Plus it already has a slightly positive natural meaning of "something robust that has stood the test of time". Then it is defined precisely for the context of each L4S doc, e.g.:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-07#section-1.2
> "Classic service:  The 'Classic' service is intended for all the
>        behaviours that currently co-exist with TCP Reno (e.g.  TCP Cubic,
>        Compound, SCTP, etc)."
>
> Reading this implies that TCP Reno is not in the classic set, as you define that set as those co-existing with Reno and that is does not include Reno. But really =you can define what ever you want, but to have others accept your definition it better be useful.
[BB] Good point. I'll certainly fix that along with the problems that 
Rod pointed out.


>>>> For example, if you did define the name "non-iPhone" to mean phones
>>>> such
>>>> as Android, Windows, etc, then you would expect the phrase "non-iPhone
>>>> knock-off products" to mean "fake Android and Windows phones". However
>>>> the constituent elements "non" and "iPhone" already have a meaning of
>>>> their own, so in the context of this phrase, it means "fake iPhones",
>>>> which is the opposite of what you wanted.
>>>>
>>>          [SM] That is completely besides the point, it made me smile though and think about that passage in Alice in Wonderland about the meaning of words.
>> [BB] Please try to understand why this is very much the critical issue (more important than the negative connotation question, which is subjective).
> 	[SM] Your are debating me to score points here, are you?
[BB] Not at all. We need a context-independent meaning. I am raising a 
practical problem with choosing a name that contains an element ("non-") 
with a natural meaning that will change the presumed meaning of 
"non-L4S" dependent on context.

> You sort all flows into two categories, those that show L4S-style response to ECN signals and those that do not. The first group is reasonably homogenous, the second is not. So calling the second set non-L4S-style seems totally reasonably to me, unless you find another PROPERTY that defines that set, and no "classic" is not a property.
[BB] Non-L4S would be reasonable, were it not for its context-dependence 
problem. On what basis can you say that classic is not a property, when 
it is (both as defined for the L4S drafts, and as a well-understood 
adjective)?


> This is getting as ridiculous as your 17 year old car example....
>
>
>> I believe you are thinking in the context of all traffic. Let's call that set A. And let's call the set of all L4S traffic L1.
>> Then in this context, "Non-L4S" naturally means A - L1.
>>
>> However, consider another context, say the context of all Low Latency traffic, that we'll call L2. This was the context of the example I found in the draft. In that context, the term "Non-L4S" already naturally means L2 - L1.
> 	[SM] Well, for me L4S traffic is traffic that show a "linear" response to CE markings instead of a "multiplicative" (we can argue whether that is the correct definition, but it sure beats the what ever I feel is L4S definition you seem to propose)
[BB] Are you really meaning to say that I don't know the theoretical 
grounding of my own research as well as you do?

BTW, Reno, Cubic and L4S responses to congestion are all multiplicative.

>   and in that sense the set theoretical observations boil down to your first formulation. The fact that the L4S draft allows for your second formulation is a defect in that draft. The other stuff is not L4S but rather LoW-Latency traffic (which might be qualified to share L4S low latency queue with true L4S traffic).
>
>> So the term "Non-L4S" already has the intended meaning of Classic, but only in one context (A), and it has other meanings in every other context.
> 	[SM] If you insist on overloading definitions, be my guest to keep the pieces once things break.
[BB] The current draft does not overload any definition of 'non-L4S'. It 
uses its natural meaning of "traffic that is not L4S" in the reduced 
context of the low latency queue. That's why I picked it as an example 
of a context-dependent word that would not be useful as a 
context-independent name.


>
>
>> It's a very bad idea to choose a name that already has a natural meaning that can be different to what you want to define the name to mean.
> 	[SM] I apologize I was not thinking about "in Wonderland" but about Through the Looking Glass (https://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php) :
> "'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'"
> L4S has exactly zero natural meaning, so please stop pretending it does.
[BB] When expanded it completely describes what it means: "Low Latency 
Low Loss Scalable throughput".



Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/