Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 09:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
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 A499712081E; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 RttWhoLgpZQ5; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30075.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.75]) (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 4A7A012080B; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:44:25 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=nzhZB8eAES4EFlOysOnbRxuwBfTSsUkM3Nvx13THxSVEyusjeQY1FMuERcvZH3sAlCZjBvrVeVDxih+Gxwrb5eDgKBxKVfL5eQU28gwERgE4nXc73JPKN0CwZfl8uXWTswAc6m6fIJV95ynVRNIs8kmFoczfNpZh6+s4lySvNyCwwfa3zqNBq95MIwO2vpPUZYBo3wadPnvscUJEOV1EPT0t9zV5pSEUeE0QM3Fs6Ef2gGd2466p8tIeKeudtJ7WBYLZVemjPpA1MUxhHLiMNNLfK9a9RaleThDkXZrd6/VTq06qHo7rgt79xTxHaUKdPJhIpYC/ADx4vrN1XYeAdQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=dzzO9vflJcNzuV0GZmd37J88rvFiY2nhrzMdYfdfeSs=; b=nJ8zEcX1i5wemk9h9f0tGavS1/yqJb776r1IXZhC8hFfGYPPH42C4KyT0KNfynpdyepO1KKP19oAPvCG2VGyJNDP8w6zbLRVCFgkBxrbIV9pmhbHTrKquTicbAJ6VOpfDKxL0TCG5nqQwQUhpKv4wXyl3q/EC+4wwpcNEk94XrKqMxchwf5851ezUFxTUmbGOIt5X6+A8W5FCN7MiBfHvSWddJaxIDD7WVCINx7nN2O7BKrNT6n9pfvZrfeEUxQ4BxJr1SgkFm5CaXzXeqf3Uf3V3P6gIRIl1quja6+67ahVOQmiFBkAZ2VPIUf6eIQI1lytRAKS96zmGeQ1VcvZJg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=dzzO9vflJcNzuV0GZmd37J88rvFiY2nhrzMdYfdfeSs=; b=YoLjsRgteLQ5s1DYnndBwGYRxtNX5m64CLJeudbLnZYVXnjmp+AHLHLaIlwUxN2iqRvwuSqFbXVyd6/SEld3Mpg5zphlHvd2375yTIkLxAT3vprlihYXEzS6kTiKgqeCwM2U8SlNagKDmiRRApJ9SJf8acVE/mcjb0EYFuNejaU=
Received: from HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.162.29) by HE1PR07MB3481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.246.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2451.21; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:44:22 +0000
Received: from HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc3f:bc2e:d106:e087]) by HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc3f:bc2e:d106:e087%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2451.018; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:44:22 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
Thread-Index: AQHVlHDpO72yLQ1dAky9TO/zJYqoYqeBgjoggAAdCACABCA3IA==
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:44:22 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB442569B09E4D7120BBE427DDC2740@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB4425250E0E10522A4574210FC2790@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <E0CE23BB-F1B4-4CB0-8415-16AEB8730B12@gmx.de> <HE1PR07MB44252042E5B7743B81B55529C27B0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4EDE27@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4EDE27@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.176.1.80]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 416937a8-d7f6-4b5d-5be3-08d7668bbb59
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB3481:|HE1PR07MB3481:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR07MB3481DCFC68D363B2D037A1BAC2740@HE1PR07MB3481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:205;
x-forefront-prvs: 0218A015FA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(136003)(366004)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(64756008)(86362001)(6436002)(66066001)(30864003)(99936001)(7736002)(8676002)(305945005)(81166006)(66574012)(55016002)(5660300002)(74316002)(52536014)(6246003)(81156014)(66476007)(66616009)(6306002)(9686003)(107886003)(66446008)(229853002)(66556008)(76116006)(476003)(25786009)(486006)(2501003)(33656002)(66946007)(446003)(4326008)(3846002)(102836004)(2906002)(478600001)(99286004)(26005)(186003)(966005)(19627235002)(7696005)(76176011)(53546011)(6506007)(14454004)(110136005)(256004)(54906003)(5024004)(14444005)(71200400001)(316002)(71190400001)(8936002)(11346002)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB3481; H:HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1pNHTAVa7EhJ+qcIfhcczGzlvd+hieFZnBJlh2MImEgNcjqPGPxsKQ528tPPcAZCXE3lJLtLqBfKBOB3udrA1KgRRxdy/JK5KH8ZqJiiIXx4IVeBOqMpUs2aGFn0VOA1rI6UtgAe+3bvE3+h5482KKV7a4ZS7FQMv4k79CUO4wmA4YNWOEk/Grs4oMwG9C2EK5LOgm9T4z2wRbpmE6snAjLB79zMRU1aiByO4xmtsmtfc5LpnNDRx6C1fYGN8vfYEVyD6VHmgrpdCa0V2oZ4DEhCHPH7N4ttbaUzr8emF1T7h5Pd7aWL1h5mcqmlQFBadD9Gn9nAuMM/nVLZUdhgaccoRpUK0zFAh817bDDDO0pifzJWbyG9YdVhlpBmu8HcmSYoxe2aZzjXC8GUXhrcnG6+Ou6LQTeqvmFk/7hPO5xIRVjsCI8bagF/q1Qu4xwL
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01D5987C.F944A5D0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 416937a8-d7f6-4b5d-5be3-08d7668bbb59
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Nov 2019 09:44:22.5027 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: heJzG3j75s1hdh5Xj9GtwJ8OZbhsVc/M80Hi6PauuQgNOaeuXTrskAZpoNcNrORlBTxmWl95SKAmmB7MrC3tjB+MFzsbymtpYbNURdc9NuQPnBP7SurBC0y19kkx1BEv
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB3481
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/hkSmoylJ8MQlw6jyoyhyqUUe-t8>
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 09:44:29 -0000
Hi I believe that it is best that I leave this discussion for the time being, I guess that it will be brought up again in some organized fashion. Hopefully then it will not eat up all the meeting time :-| /Ingemar > -----Original Message----- > From: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> > Sent: den 8 november 2019 19:41 > To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>; Sebastian > Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Ingemar Johansson S > <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; > 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net > Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking > > Hi Ingemar, > > A question for clarification, given that the term "classic" is used for different > aspects in L4S: > > Does your preference include the terms 'Classic' TCP and 'Classic' congestion > control, specifically when referring to a state-of-the-art TCP stack as currently > shipped by major operating systems? > > If so, can you provide references for use of the terms 'Classic' TCP and 'Classic' > congestion control for what is currently widely deployed in the Internet? > > Thanks > > Michael > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 6:04 PM > > To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Ingemar Johansson S > > <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Scharf, Michael > > <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net > > Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org; Ingemar Johansson S > > <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> > > Subject: RE: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking > > > > Hi Sebastian > > > > I clearly mentioned that I would prefer that the term "classic" is > > kept, the earth will likely continue to spin around its axis even if > > it is changed to something else > > 😊. But then it should be something that the group can agree on, I > > don't however see any consensus. > > > > /Ingemar > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> > > > Sent: den 6 november 2019 08:08 > > > To: Ingemar Johansson S > > > <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; > > > Michael.Scharf@hs- esslingen.de; 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net > > > Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>; > > tcpm@ietf.org; > > > tsvwg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking > > > > > > 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=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> > > > >> 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> > > > >> Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking > > > >> Message-ID: <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0- > ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net> > > > >> 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: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- > > > >> hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyH > > > >> > > > > >Y<https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF- > > hDvWO3I5MudwpNk > > > >> > KyHY> , I object to the terms ?traditional TCP? and also > > > >> > KyHY> ?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 > > > >> > > > > > >https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9e3cf770-c2e8fb81-9e3cb7eb-86 > > > >4 > > > >> > > 685b2085c-4ba6a1960c4f3e7a&q=1&e=bf49c0f0-380b-42d4-93a2- > > > >> 9ebedff802e > > > >> > > 0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbobbriscoe.net%2F > > > >> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > tcpm mailing list > > > >> > > tcpm@ietf.org > > > >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > >> 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 > > > >/de7 > > > >97 > > > >> fd1/attachment.html> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> Subject: Digest Footer > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> tcpm mailing list > > > >> tcpm@ietf.org > > > >> 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.
- 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