Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id

Wesley Eddy <> Mon, 11 November 2019 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C0C12007C for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TPHKET2GUqf4 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3921207FD for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m125so11328863qkd.8 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dBTk08Cm+QMU4eeGcxvl25HLH7JBUm2KBZ8QgtbbOrM=; b=DP6QKxa4IBU62mMMsWhaO3GXnC4+jvNajnqoRf31CXpNEcpHsFazDC+tRgXeLHLj2o eRis3z1+D/b3GR2qvthq9e00iTCZCCvnjV8bOP9qenWWDLqalP1QJFTOYCf2EgankEUV nukLS/PX/xWbFh6H/whPM42KC4APWJNxEzUsbzb0Rp4/yCzoL4nCPnUO9djKDC2u1/OZ v3ixnU+bXGhqp9yLfoFj2u0hPV4d9Nv9uahPe3NsecSs+so4Dhg2B3j8vhDdrz/hctGc e69kiBU3StjSrE3tpGsQeApA/vZpLL8gjlIcUDKDUaY7AAGlqpo1KMcHtnsPTdRp/hjn UIKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=dBTk08Cm+QMU4eeGcxvl25HLH7JBUm2KBZ8QgtbbOrM=; b=W4ORzuACuEjcmb+nTwbN+43rq6bj/tBkBiLp9fHYqm0Xz4xIB1nsXLiH3BGa9PASrg yODB7PApidshLlU7SR2SIZf2+qKtOZmMOuXmmeImfqyoi4HyIvHXbofG5fYWN+UBeYjN BVfcQDNR1BFhQmdXTJ4pHvdkj1mW+E98gs6WNF3Mbo8xW7Dm/tfKXbkBA2L4XLtj2lRY BPnhSwNlBFsOj4KSqeUg/LJ3Hle2hMMP42xnI6n/aSOvNTnhznSysoOsWzMUAzb4RMwS AT3aJuRcbDuR3ASKYqAoT1WByXaYoP9ifkeTR/ktaKw7+O2cWI0v8JpAg0C9gAgfoPI2 O83A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXNUUuVeGK5rVRWJJk2nB9f5RBv2A6FpB917X0TYD99EogdywIH RJToJMQmiTHTp7bmcY3UocLphA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzvOXFOfELcMxrPdAUQ4RKbtmOEfWgOpMfq4Bz6gHqIILXxiucf4zWrD1prihxKq5vOArmVMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a68d:: with SMTP id p135mr10576239qke.374.1573483356615; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t132sm7215393qke.51.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:42:36 -0800 (PST)
To:, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:42:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A9883BBD9338771DEB9790A4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:42:41 -0000

I think both AccECN and RACK are appropriately "informational" 
references in the L4S drafts.

They might be important to TCP Prague code, but the in-network L4S 
pieces don't have a strict dependency.

On 11/11/2019 5:16 AM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
> So can you confirm that a TCP sender can use the L4S service without 
> implementing AccECN? I am asking again since there has been some 
> recent list discussion on that, e.g., given the points raised by 
> Sebastian. I am a bit lost here on what the future plan in L4S 
> actually is.
> And I still fail to understand why even the general idea of RACK 
> matters to AQM algorithms, traffic classifiers, or priority schedulers 
> for traffic with 1/p congestion control in a router. RACK has lots of 
> merits, but most of them are IMHO entirely unrelated to the vision of 
> L4S. I’d suggest to focus L4S on solving the key problems for traffic 
> with 1/p congestion control.