Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ingmar,

IMHO this is a slippery slope argument. Because if minor changes to the naming are "impossible" how will changed to the underlying concepts and methods be acceptable to you. Because surely these other organizations already committed to what is proposed to the IETF as an experiment?
My gripe with the classic moniker is that this term is not outcome neutral. What I mean is, that while in itself not necessarily negative, it implies that the new kid on the block is the way into the future, while the classic version should head into it's well-deserved retirement. And on the facts this simply is not settled or accepted in the case of L4S. IMHO the testing published by the L4S/RITE folks always tested conditions that are very favorable to L4S and completely ignored to reach out to the actual user community interested in low latency under load. It might well be that the L4S approach might also do well in a true stress test (bi-directiomal saturation on a asymmetric path with bursty cross traffic for starters), but I would like to see numbers first. And the L4S sce back-off data posted to this list in the path seems to indicate that L4S still has open ends that IMHO need addressing (independent of whether 3GPP likes this or not). 

Best Regards
        Sebastian

On November 6, 2019 7:12:39 AM GMT+01:00, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi
>
>I would prefer that the term "Classic" is kept. 
>L4S is not anymore an IETF only matter. Work is ongoing to get support
>for
>L4S in 3GPP for 5G and the input papers there use the term classic. 
>It is of course too late for changing classic to something else, but
>then it
>is appreciated that It is something that the group can agree on and I
>don't
>see that we are there, therefore it is better to stick to "classic".
>And to me the term "classic" does not sound negative. 
>
>/Ingemar
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 00:22:44 +0000
>> From: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>, "Rodney W.
>> 	Grimes" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>> 	<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>> 
>> 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:[e-mail]>
>> > *Gesendet: *Montag, 4. November 2019 20:17
>> > *An: *Scharf, Michael <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > *Cc: *Bob Briscoe <mailto:[e-mail]>; Wesley Eddy
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
><mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > *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:[e-mail]>
>> > > Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 19:09
>> > > An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>Wesley
>> > Eddy<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > > 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-
>> hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyH
>> >
>Y<https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNk
>> > KyHY> , 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:[e-mail]>
>> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. August 2019 07:08
>> > > An: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > > 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
>> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> > > Bob Briscoe
>> > >
>https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9e3cf770-c2e8fb81-9e3cb7eb-864
>> > > 685b2085c-4ba6a1960c4f3e7a&q=1&e=bf49c0f0-380b-42d4-93a2-
>> 9ebedff802e
>> > > 0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbobbriscoe.net%2F
>> >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > tcpm mailing list
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rod Grimes [e-mail]
>> 
>> --
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe
>https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=861241a8-
>> dac64d59-86120133-864685b2085c-16120a27ab4a751a&q=1&e=bf49c0f0-
>> 380b-42d4-93a2-9ebedff802e0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbobbriscoe.net%2F
>> 
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/attachments/20191106/de797
>> fd1/attachment.html>
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of tcpm Digest, Vol 187, Issue 15
>> *************************************

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.