Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

I see the problem. Nearly all the occurrences of 'Classic TCP' are in 
the appendix that was written v early on, when the focus was only TCP. 
That text was not written by me, and I haven't got round to editing it 
for consistency. However, there are 4 occurrences of "'Classic' TCP" in 
the abstract and intro, which I will also fix.

Can you say which "David's proposal" you mean please?


Bob

On 11/11/2019 23:10, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> OK, so we seem to make some progress at least regarding the term 
> ‚classic‘ TCP. As mentioned before, I personally would find the term 
> ‘Classic’ QUIC very confusing and you cannot avoid that if you talk 
> about ‘Classic’ TCP, IMHO. So, it seems better to avoid that 
> terminology for all transport protocols. For the record, in 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-08 the combination of the terms ‘classic’ 
> and ‘TCP’ back-to-back is used 11 times as far as I can see.
>
> Regarding congestion control, I’d like to emphasize that David’s 
> proposal would also work well for me, i.e., characterizing the 
> congestion control by functional properties. This avoids all issues 
> regarding whether something will supersede something else (including 
> the issue that EXP is just an experiment that won’t update or replace 
> any PS document).
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2019 4:31 PM
> *To:* Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>; Wesley Eddy 
> <[e-mail]>; Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
> 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]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:54 PM
>     *To:* Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Bob Briscoe
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Rodney W.
>     Grimes <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[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 Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

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