IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] "David's proposal" for cc class terms (was RE: L4S status tracking)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Wed, 13 November 2019 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 6B7E3120841; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 CBiXPgWHhSnf; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 9B0F712083E; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id m6so2756530lfl.3; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2NI9WLZ9ZkSI8RfZ9e6V1tkvg1yzIu40cSCMFG9WZpg=; b=klzA7fBqumOywEbUhcKTSBbWIdI6Fax5T9qRld7kXXZ7NDAtr01C2z/5wTg0iJoAeA 7WYRiH8QWwXDJyoe8z7W2H+3Co19eoG8WkdM+s830Lbwa83mjdELW45zZ5xRKwacnXAb kH9lQVBpS/lP3MJumaiWdpPRKaCqI3u1O8/c0jvmuF1Xz8AFODHX8pj+q0rHJrvptDXk AORERxrs3X9FIj5MX6YpSI2pAR6pv3dhjgMKgptOq22BCJ9QBcZ9tvdeCsM6qeoGyMlL 3NzP4N/3FCDWeFPXcVIh3RNVSJFwrpXwPMj8sZsBBVk9vXf+pSYuBUkYWboXKqyJGjWg 5BJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2NI9WLZ9ZkSI8RfZ9e6V1tkvg1yzIu40cSCMFG9WZpg=; b=HTW0KvejZfBfMWxEo9MHY8oixovRAMB/nnpmKcDJJdQCldMEpeIwBe1QP4t9VXJh+D k0epA0qzzNqLASvAz2lRCGlWt8Qxjgvz4sMfaPfRT2NjEJ/k/BUpPrD2CEHwiv2baszn 1/vmBnT1IIBxrWIMvr2kUpeThcA5QFPptSAdeN3A7T5kws6weqe17jQvCk8OM/TBLjiL ZsR3SWHz22t3fSqCn349JehjrvaHfmR0jRRDkaUMVdpqGFe6LLizrjhuMkoMiYGzHBXc UGbiB5kib1UZLUPu9o3z5yYQR7UI9ZvrRyMGbAT0Tek27ZZo8BuSKpMZFhpwASv1b5ag dCxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUyYJqfY3FQi7lSH5CHtj9FCv4ldONN51Zbvjj8APlhWTeXYBdS HJ1o7TSxYbtaI2DywNrIkV8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZ7whAiIaNvqNnsfssjBETfglppHbYapJpafo5Djhjje4p+Huz/QAiu4JO5/nTdeOUUHJAbg==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c790:: with SMTP id x138mr3761182lff.61.1573669152666; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (85-76-23-24-nat.elisa-mobile.fi. [85.76.23.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14sm1177923ljn.105.2019.11.13.10.19.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6c9a30d4-eec8-d82f-59b4-37e9f797ae91@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:19:10 +0200
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <96111DEA-669E-47FF-B50D-B60FE59CA15E@gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR19MB4045EAFC55061858895E2F0983760@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6c9a30d4-eec8-d82f-59b4-37e9f797ae91@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/l1n31dDWe3wtKbHPRAWX9UpWJhI>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] "David's proposal" for cc class terms (was RE: 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, 13 Nov 2019 18:19:16 -0000

> On 13 Nov, 2019, at 7:43 pm, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> "Scalable" is the term we've been using in the L4S documents for 1/p, defined in l4s-arch as:
> 
>    Scalable Congestion Control:  A congestion control where the packet
>       flow rate per round trip (the window) is inversely proportional to
>       the level (probability) of congestion signals.

Unfortunately, the term "scalable" sounds like a marketing term to me.  I would prefer to support terms with some obvious technical basis.  In my experience, DCTCP is closely associated with this response function, and is often used as shorthand for it.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email