Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 06 November 2019 18:36 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 E2D5312011C; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:36:45 -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 CS_NdBtBxXEU; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:36:42 -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 840111200F1; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:36:40 -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=d5XXrySn0WiTqFbYB0jY9DUcnk9Cvt7MkaqI/Jv+PpM=; b=59rB5cwDJBGyc5nQZauGoJdGq dZlEXwaHqazHUpMBxxuOCpJa/k5t4S3Ysh+kIJ4Wkoj8JB+LEUPzEQSZrGxx21NybNK9vtzT1mhtU E9O9pWbVMGQf0VeLeWWUlU+7uMvQqXaJgzq4mgTgN+l2710Gu5lNE5Ia9CDmHDETtdYHfY7R/VnhK sFXKmhTAi1RRhCPrae+KiiKebnV5xHdAob/xiF0Q/Eekij3/a206PLu8mukwtDoMnvJIvmiss02Qa NvQ6V8kf3fjKKoWUeLNRQsAZs0LL86m0IVsR0ojcKDEKr9CnmASpvnLLRXz4hEfNbWyyyjbzPFZwj /nZtO8qtA==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=39542 helo=[192.168.0.5]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1iSQAY-00047m-4g; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:36:38 +0000
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@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> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <bc12fc37-2c7a-d6c4-8372-3b341682c4bf@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:36:37 +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: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------55C4F94FFDD19FAEF04A8A6D"
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/64incAq3nVSj3B4K36JiwhF_1lo>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:36:46 -0000
Michael, Regarding the only usage you say you do object to, I've already said... On 04/11/2019 18:09, Bob Briscoe wrote: > I have never, to my knowledge, used the term classic TCP, or classic > TCP congestion control. ...because Classic is intended as a a description of a set of congestion controls. The protocol is relatively irrelevant. Pls see my response to Sebastien concerning the slightly positive connotation of the word 'classic'. And how even a nonsense word coined for "something intended to be superseded" will develop a negative connotation as soon as it is defined. This implies that the problem you've raised is impossible to solve without upsetting certain sensitive people. Bob On 06/11/2019 07:23, Scharf, Michael wrote: > > Bob, > > I am not convinced by any of your statements. > > There are more than 500.000 hits in Google for „non-iPhone“ and I see > many that are not about fakes. > > Certainly, I don’t insist in the term „non-L4S“. This is just an > example. I already proposed „non-L4S-enabled“ as well. I fail to > understand how „non-L4S-enabled TCP“ could be confused with „non-L4S > traffic“. But, as outlined below, anyway there are other solutions. > > Also, I don’t object to the term „Classic“ when referring to ECN and > other related concepts if that use of the term has strong TSVWG > consensus. For instance, "classic“ ECN feedback, „classic“ queue, > „classic“ traffic would work for me in case TSVWG strongly supports > that term. > > Thus, personally, I am not asking for any disruptive change. I don’t > ask to avoid „Classic“ in general. > > What does **not** work for me is the term „Classic“ TCP, in particular > when refering to TCP as standardized by TCPM. I also don’t agree to > the term „classic“ congestion Control for Reno, CUBIC, CTCP, i.e., > work of the TCPM working group. To me, the authors of this document do > not have the right to tag work of the TCPM working group with a term > such as „classic“ that is used in marketing language. > > And there are plenty of simple ways to avoid that problematic term > „Classic“ TCP. Here are some more examples: > > * TCP without the L4S extension > * TCP (senders/stacks/connections) not using L4S > * TCP without support of L4S > * TCP (senders/stacks/connections) lacking L4S support > * TCP (senders/stacks/connections) not participating in the L4S > experiment > * … and more and also permutations thereof > > You can also try to reword text to just to avoid the term „Classic“ > TCP to work around the problem. > > Regarding congestion control, you can refer instead to > > * specific algorithms such as Reno or CUBIC > * „high-speed loss-based congestion control“ > * or any of the above terms, e.g., „congestion control without L4S > support“ and the like > > My ask is a simple editorial change that will IMHO only affect few > occurences of the term „Classic“. Can you please propose next steps > that addess my concern? > > Thanks > > Michael > > *Von: *Bob Briscoe <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net> > *Gesendet: *Mittwoch, 6. November 2019 01:22 > *An: *Scharf, Michael <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Rodney > W. Grimes <mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> > *Cc: *Wesley Eddy <mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org > <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> > *Betreff: *Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking > > Michael, Rod, > > Altho non-L4S is a reasonable idea, I think it has more of a negative > connotation than classic. For instance, consider describing Android > phones as non-iPhones. > > Also, in the ecn-l4s-id draft, we introduce the possibility that some > operators might classify non-L4S traffic (DNS, VoIP, EF, NQB, etc) > into the same queue as L4S traffic (and we say that in this case the > queue would be called the Low Latency queue). This shows that the term > non-L4S is not a good choice for a name, because the words it is made > from already give it a meaning of its own that conflicts with the > definition you want it to have in certain contexts. > > 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. > > The term Classic for the non-L4S service, its queue, its traffic, its > congestion control, etc. is defined in the terminology section of the > drafts, so I think it's best to live with this - it's not a > significant problem. Indeed, it has become widely used and widely > understood since 2015, and changing it to non-L4S now would cause > unnecessary confusion. > > > > Bob > > > > On 04/11/2019 19:21, Scharf, Michael wrote: >> >> I agree. „non-L4S“ may be even better. >> >> Michael >> >> *Von: *Rodney W. Grimes <mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> >> *Gesendet: *Montag, 4. November 2019 20:17 >> *An: *Scharf, Michael <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> >> *Cc: *Bob Briscoe <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>; Wesley Eddy >> <mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; >> tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> >> *Betreff: *Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking >> >> > You can e.g. use ?non-L4S-enabled TCP?. >> > >> > Terminology does matter to me given that I strongly disagree to any >> use of ?marketing language? when it comes to TCP. >> >> My concern here of use of terms like, legacy, classic, new, old >> is that they are pretty much all of the relative from and thus >> ambiguous over time. >> >> newReno is new only relative to Reno, that is fairly clear, >> but if I said newTCP or oldTCP with what frame should the >> reference be evaluated. >> >> I believe in the case of L4S the time invariant term would be, >> as Michael suggests above, "non-L4S". Note that enabled >> for me is a noise word in this context, and TCP may or may >> not be needed depending on context, but for literal replacement >> of Legacy or Classic "non-L4S" is invariant over time. >> >> Rod >> >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > Von: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net> >> > Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 19:09 >> > An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Wesley >> Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org> >> > Cc: tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> >> > Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking >> > >> > Michael, >> > >> > Previously, I have been told not to use the term standard for RFCs >> that are not standards. RFC5681 is 'only' a draft standard. This is >> why, in the IETF at least, I avoid using the term "standard TCP >> congestion control". I generally call it Reno when referring to the >> congestion control. >> > >> > I have never, to my knowledge, used the term classic TCP, or >> classic TCP congestion control. >> > >> > And I rarely use the term legacy, and if I do I'm happy to have >> alternatives suggested. >> > >> > I've checked the L4S drafts, and there is one phrase that I shall >> leave in ecn-l4s-id: "the traditional TCP Reno additive increase", >> because this is correctly used to mean the traditional increase (in >> numerous AIMD CCs), not traditional TCP. There was one other >> occurrence of "traditional TCP senders" in a whole para in an >> appendix that has just been deleted anyway. And in aqm-dualq-coupled >> there was one "legacy TCP flows" (changed to "Classic traffic" now in >> my local copy, using the defined term in all the L4S drafts). >> > >> > l4s-arch is getting a complete make-over for terminology, so I will >> check that next. >> > >> > inline... >> > >> > >> > On 23/08/2019 15:01, Scharf, Michael wrote: >> > >> > Hi Wes, >> > >> > >> > >> > I?d like to add a smaller item that is mostly editorial and can >> hopefully be sorted just out by re-wording, albeit it may require a >> careful analysis of all documents. >> > >> > >> > >> > As already noted in >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY<https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY> >> , I object to the terms ?traditional TCP? and also ?classic TCP? or >> ?legacy? TCP when referring to a TCP implementation according to IETF >> standards-track RFCs. >> > >> > >> > >> > To me as a non-native native speaker, all these terms have a >> negative connotation. I also think this language is typical to >> marketing material. >> > >> > You're entitled to your opinion but, as a native speaker, I don't >> think 'classic' or 'traditional' are particularly pejorative, tho >> they can be when used in a context that intends them to be. They also >> mean "stood the test of time". I find 'legacy' has a connotation of >> marketing-speak, but it's not that bad. >> > >> > This is an enduring problem when trying to improve on the good work >> that other people have done before you (which is the context of >> everything we are doing). We need a word that distinguishes the old >> from the new, but we don't want to completely trash the thing that >> has already been successful, but had its day. >> > >> > Nonetheless, it is also important not to be too precious about past >> work. We all recognize that Reno TCP is unscalable and has problems. >> IMO, it is OK to describe technologies that have had their time with >> negative connotations. Indeed, you have been an author (with me) of >> an RFC on open issues in congestion control. >> > >> > I notice you haven't suggested an alternative term for "the >> thing(s) we are trying to improve on". Not surprising, because it's >> difficult. >> > >> > When we (the L4S developers) were first looking for a term for the >> non-L4S queue and the non-L4S service, we didn't want to use 'legacy' >> for the above reasons, but we did want to imply pre-existing, so we >> decided on 'classic', which we all felt had a generally neutral >> connotation, but said what we meant. >> > >> > Finally, I do not want this issue to take up any time that would >> detract from technical issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > My prefered term when referring to TCP according to standards-track >> specification is ?standard TCP?. I would also be fine with other >> terms as long as they are neutral and make clear that experiments do >> not replace, deprecate, or outperform standards. >> > >> > >> > >> > Similarly, I think that term such as ?classic? is not appropriate >> for the TCP standard congestion control (?Reno?). As of today, this >> is the TCP congestion control algorithm on standards track that has >> IETF consensus. The term in the TCPM charter is ?TCP standard >> congestion control?. I also think that terms such as >> ?Reno-compatible? or the like would be neutral. >> > >> > >> > >> > Note that I do not object to the terms ?classic ECN?, ?legacy ECN?, >> ?legacy AQM? or the like, i.e., if the context is ECN and not >> specifically TCP or the TCP congestion control. I believe it is up to >> the TSVWG do decide if this term shall be used for compliance to RFC >> 3168. I have no strong opinion on that. As far as I can see, most use >> of the term ?classic? is in this context and I don?t ask for changes >> in those cases. >> > >> > >> > >> > Some use of the term ?Classic Service? may also require careful >> review to clearly separate it from TCP Standard behavior. >> > >> > >> > >> > Note that some use of the term ?Classic TCP? would probably also >> apply to ?Classic QUIC? once the QUIC standard is finished. To me as >> a non-native speaker, it would be really strange to use the term >> ?classic? in the context of a brand-new transport protocol. IMHO in >> that case the term ?classic? would be even more confusing. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also add the TCPM list in CC to ensure consistency. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > >> > Michael (with no hat) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Von: Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com> >> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. August 2019 07:08 >> > An: tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org> >> > Betreff: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking >> > >> > >> > >> > I created tickets in the TSVWG "trac" tool in order to help keep track >> > of the individual things that look like they should be addressed in >> > progressing L4S document set: >> > >> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/report/1?sort=ticket&asc=1&page=1 >> > >> > I'll try to update these based on the ongoing discussions, updates, >> > etc., but it will make it very easy if you happen to mention the ticket >> > numbers or some key words in threads and messages, when significant. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > tcpm mailing list >> > tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ________________________________________________________________ >> > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > tcpm mailing list >> > tcpm@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >> >> -- >> Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/ -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Black, David
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Dave Taht
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Black, David
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael