Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hopefully not adding confusion, I'm in favor of Michael's suggestion (below), as I understand it:
                - L4S has a "Classic" service
                - Protocols and traffic that use the L4S "Classic" service are identified/named/described with terms other than "Classic".

For congestion control in particular, I've found myself referring to 1/p and 1/sqrt(p) congestion response behaviors for technical clarity/precision in discussion, but those terms don't exactly roll off the tip of the tongue ... and assume that the reader is familiar enough with TCP throughput equations to know what the variable p stands for.

Thanks, --David

From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:11 AM
To: Wesley Eddy; Bob Briscoe; Rodney W. Grimes
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
... 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.

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.)