IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpPrague] L4S scheduling conflicts (was: l4s - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96)

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Mon, 13 June 2016 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2FF12D16D; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 YssSabZLZc_D; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx142.netapp.com (mx142.netapp.com [216.240.21.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3301012D147; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,466,1459839600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="116659516"
Received: from hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.37]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2016 01:57:32 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx04-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:57:24 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::837:3f3:c8b1:8d6f%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1156.000; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:57:24 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net>
Thread-Topic: L4S scheduling conflicts (was: l4s - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96)
Thread-Index: AQHRxU6lx4tziPMssEWan+8LLIziGJ/njfWA
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:57:24 +0000
Message-ID: <C0CAD4D4-E070-491C-9F4E-4910C652FE54@netapp.com>
References: <20160610163522.30445.47431.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575B4FAC.7070306@bobbriscoe.net> <7916F760-08CF-40BF-995E-3C01258897AB@kuehlewind.net> <3B44AE67-C080-49D9-AD75-46414598EB1B@kuehlewind.net> <c09d91472f664be9bf99339cf79240cc@rew09926dag03b.domain1.systemhost.net> <2F4CC5CB-BB01-4D3D-923C-600C363B4326@kuehlewind.net> <575E707F.6000700@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <575E707F.6000700@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91F018CB-66A6-49FC-844D-A85117683A39"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpprague/gkUN_teqUrPyMDK7OAk3YlByY1A>
Cc: Philip Eardley <philip.eardley@bt.com>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "l4s-chairs@ietf.org" <l4s-chairs@ietf.org>, "spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com" <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, TCP Prague List <tcpPrague@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpPrague] L4S scheduling conflicts (was: l4s - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96)
X-BeenThere: tcpprague@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To coordinate implementation and standardisation of TCP Prague across platforms. TCP Prague will be an evolution of DCTCP designed to live alongside other TCP variants and derivatives." <tcpprague.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpprague/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpprague@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:57:59 -0000

Hi,

On 2016-06-13, at 10:36, Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
> Here's my thinking behind the conflict list:
> I put: "all Transport Area WGs, avtcore, iccrg", which resulted in the current conflicts list:
> 
> Conflicts to Avoid:
> First Priority: avtcore, iccrg, alto, aqm, dtn, ippm, mptcp, nfsv4, rmcat, taps, tcpinc, tcpm, tram, tsvwg

I'd put these as 2nd order: avtcore, ippm, tram

And these even lower: alto, dtn, nfsv4

Lars

> 
> 
> We have a list of WGs that we have already said L4S will interact with in the problem statement:
> * tsvwg, aqm, tcpm, rmcat, iccrg, avtcore
> 
> * mptcp will be added in the next draft of the problem-statement (omission pointed out by Marcelo)
> 
> I think we should keep the following:
> * dtn: addressing a very similar problem of ultra-low loss, ultra-low latency, but currently in a very different way
> * taps: l4s is disruptive to taps, because it offers a protocol that removes the queuing delay dimension from the requirements dilemma - potentially eventually for all transport protocols
> 
> That leaves the following that could be trimmed:
> * alto, nfsv4, tcpinc, tram
> 
> I think tcpinc should stay as a second (or even first) priority conflict, because of all the tcp experts who would be conflicted.
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> On 11/06/16 19:11, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>> 
>> I anyway want to trim the conflict list (because currently there is more stuff on than needed). I guess you as chair should be able to do that as well. Please do so if you want. But please do it soon if possible :-)
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email