Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 06 November 2019 07:25 UTC
Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 4B8E7120BA0 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 vMsUSQQGeuRj for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE99120B96 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:25:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1573025128; bh=mHdmVf0qohE/FU3qqBBXUuXja+YbQmiHrvLCfXKR754=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From; b=cS56L3lS1vgz6lfR0X0qqGCOiPN86AGvGGu2fraWAgjeju7lJ/FG1JJNXn0wKZnjA HtfinIEt5PfE8isNKB3CUiigxawMo8znMXfZ33Sd/utbz2MzZ9pSBtcf2+XJiIvB3x gJoCHg5ZyA9fWW+cE/Jnt+LbFpPHc/raTCyK/At8=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.198.62.136] ([80.187.112.39]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M2O2W-1iV0k72q9W-003v97; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:18:53 +0100
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:18:46 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <0F339755-A4C6-486B-8751-23DFB50C7280@gmx.de>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:1il8+2cgrftYfrCneAIktk0KF1ibbJieKwa03PNaYjazvnZ7DDe ZCNOopWL6qLCf+T88Uo0sXuRCjUk7far3gXQVC/RU+fcKbKQjP3I9xs/vWGa+3bKQ8nHrrZ HmwJDngtqPYs7724lF8PaeEXeNO6l3SOAsHkeZvCCzxCQJBwvwrYQutMzycFmolIrK1zKgo TLe8bDmcUZf/xTiigNUgw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Mi6m7ijnryE=:vkPi373E3YeHX6gnCY9Plu C3r8njEM7czfAiUrerGmxQQDd0U7rbeszkYcujpr0QEYlA8cLz3zwZQ70HO69RU0pMnOjo15g lBJzdxhUZ+ixz//n6O1zOiQSqR66mveaWQ34gNu+hAtLoT+ksZc0gI5QcnqKnOQgX9BuhRRJJ SYUfgYLunyHV6PuUngFecGqUTzrgTxIFhqWgy5z1+uus+3k/s+szbyGVmILWEg7p/OiftD1Ww YYFs+FjAh8DPpRk5ld8wmIVk5y+vJyH2JABvuBiOsCPZXNsbRRTjSgQiPGe/YEOAROq2Hbc0z H+QMfTfaZBLwsTGsThBsu+fHBdu5D6xe11b+qNzrkWa1SdvqbHIJc8CUhsVHcV1npqNLajdCW 2kx0xdY+/FKkZzdokQ+aQ8EJjMJBL07Tk2BAomkbpX+fT0B2eYRMCEdgdvhGqG6tZK1+VbT/h JTU1IksEVZXHZ7EfFiV2yuvjENDlsguD4XnrXbJ2A71q2Ed48xBrc4OwVKD6gqh2J/emKBbND 6EDkBWv7VyTpSayAos300ZVMhVfumXcBnTyOrEqyHfGGN3cFFyk4qPlUylOddl1Plr+tBG4vm cyz0vfFcNh2m2j7JzSWIqMRCVpfO3QnGCHUjh3GFhJRP32cRbF9dAnECFrfqIUa5hIcv8g1Xn iLf7zkP0t6XiziOMRytRVRlNUbmaOo5PdDqlio/p4jzqgvoRUGb+9Vw0mQD3sOdoW+nwjXs1k NDuPYuviKwBuW3ysUZqNgf9qDeS2Oa12swlutNz3HdQPO3o68Ck9RUZ5JizZIFjFX191DjM2G ihHLvfnJeZ5V1e5iSEGyGR4FAHtzWFdPn7B8ZRrftPz81oYvdUbzEFwZLZXmYNA3rJXYl/Lb6 JKX/sti/+htwdIJyawKi2OwTSQZFfsnnf388mdNoGUVTgYXJTxiM/fFGFymEZ3Q3wN5TlH1U6 9EV1k4bgqgdBXGxv+WUf10WUM1vJujEs7Bd2J9QH6T/9E2skLDdg6CEiFnbC9pRC5zwFJmH4C lEZQsdY/ZhCY+hHLWaUvtjTfxQzrABvPF7sl4m1dv3QW4fu6DbZg5OvgBseJv2EdpDp7rax/J 2tohiFKY9tqaWsQbUvzDWo8ovcIGCa3nbYQ3dogt19wLggFqhg/jVxUzejo0Axvl90xLw6/C/ St/2ZByzw/yAO0oCW1fl9Am51J6JknQy10BkPLArooRt4VtG9OVMQQxjrk+6uFEW+spV+kLln lTaXpUWuFqJ1FFdsRrjQ/uhZ+D0H/wE2LtRmjXWrovNcYzbROWZuH5eATFAI=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/7itsjlE2UKyxtVYbTbNP6U2fRAk>
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 07:25:34 -0000
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. For instance, consider describing Android >phones as non-iPhones. [SM] In a discussion of say the merits of iPhones versus the competition that seems to be a decent description? > >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. [SM] Well, that use does not seem to interfere much, but if it does that would be another term to change, no? > >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. > >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. [SM] If it is not significant, then changing it surely is not a problem? Indeed, it has become widely used and widely understood since >2015, and changing it to non-L4S now would cause unnecessary confusion. [SM] By that logic nothing in the L4S drafts should be changed? If I recall correctly that is not how getting a draft past reviewers works.... > > > >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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
- 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