Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

On 07/11/2019 08:11, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> … and just to show that _/my/_ concern would be trivial to address by 
> small editorial changes:
>
> For the abstract of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, the wording “It gives 
> an incremental migration path so that normal TCP traffic classified in 
> the ‘Classic’ service of L4S will be no worse off” would already work 
> for me.  It just takes a small editorial change to make me happy. This 
> can’t be so hard.
>
> Personally, I wonder if “classic” is indeed the best name for a 
> service class (and, e.g., “normal” sounds better to me), but in the 
> context of a service class, “classic” could actually work for me, if 
> TSVWG really wants that name with strong consensus. I don’t care how 
> about names for DiffSe^D^D^D^D^D^D traffic classifiers, traffic 
> policers/shapers, AQM schemes, or whatever else is done in the fast 
> path of a router to implement low latency service.
>
> I only object to specific terminology such as ‘Classic’ TCP or 
> ‘Classic’ congestion control because I don’t think that ‘classic’ is a 
> proper characterization for TCPM standards or TCP/IP stack behavior 
> not aligned with whatever L4S believes the bright future shall be.
>
I thought I had already agreed to remove 'TCP' from all instances of 
'Classic TCP traffic' etc, and that I hadn't intended to include 'TCP' 
in the first place. Because it's the congestion controls that are 
relevant in L4S drafts, not the protocols.



Bob
>
> Whether such small rewording address fully the concerns from others 
> may be a different question.
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:54 PM
> *To:* Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>; Bob Briscoe 
> <[e-mail]>; Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
> On 11/6/2019 1:57 PM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
>     Bob,
>
>     From draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-08: “It gives an incremental
>     migration path so that existing 'Classic' TCP traffic will be no
>     worse off”
>
>     You are proposing an experiment. Not more than that. I will be
>     fine with the term “Classic” for TCP and TCPM-specified congestion
>     control when more than 50% of Internet traffic uses that new
>     technology.
>
>     Until this happens, I insist that the word “Classic” must be
>     removed in all context of TCP and congestion control (as far as it
>     is owned by TCPM), including the reference above. BTW, “normal” as
>     suggested would also work for me. So, you have plenty of options
>     for other terms.
>
> If Dave+Michael's suggestion of replacing "classic" with "normal" is 
> agreable to others, this seems like a good way forward to me.  It 
> should be easy enough to explain in other SDOs that classic and normal 
> mean the same thing, if this is a real issue.
>
> (FWIW, I've never had a problem myself with "classic", nor read any 
> negative connotations to it.  However, for the sake of working group 
> progress, I think we just need to pick something that seems the least 
> terrible and agree to move on.)
>

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