IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Sun, 17 May 2020 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1290B3A0A32 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.009
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.207, 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 VdEfr5nlxxHd for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::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 142E63A0A30 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id o67so2997569ila.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gDQm8PhmgNYDKDzf8mNE1xtxNFUF576uSU0RgB5OLr4=; b=VGCCb145Wjy0hqLkd5cuRki5IRjzPqArjAZT62C35L8IVCxg7LWQ/BoY7CwvrY2aBq YcMc9fMyFBjjxIPLlMRXy/MtVuJcO5EsMJJVr4h69pGuJs3NCwlGWRyEgOdyG4LimBWJ UHx6uGJv+VcEFwKOlGkZe58+2rCmCqPos4V4dRoYe7HIYqKLtCEssIZ5G7Pm2tP8gkqx HHAOlW2bWO5b0OjwRogaYSEJmFWvwwBBCo5xRi6ZOl3neK5ZkhLjH7B25Fye4evlRVAE bvikBwVDEnq6tmiV7spVqCK+3n1DP+D5z/1t5C4rCvZvTsftCvW+uX+hhAVagcUCi+ER wvCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gDQm8PhmgNYDKDzf8mNE1xtxNFUF576uSU0RgB5OLr4=; b=Y6gg/FLO6NsmY79AGEMpVjb2IXsuD15d6qv8ZwtOukKx0Ht1zCK3b/37WJ5NkA0FOP RFvfa2Y4g/WYvE7FUODfxgGTHlMdBVjhg1GyZ/mA6povHGx0wd+w9k373zQplfsTyiid YAUVfVqKJM5d9SECNpylPPsZuWR7dS91SwIvESyg3lJOrdtozZVgL2epWOoEDCmfThiG 0LEEaIxk01wfsl9I/4PJrlqvS91RLg6M53xX0Kwht0B6ROrkIT9LMH1Ee5g3UIzpO9ka G8/NwLjsfO+1gjGyV5r6uKjv+pYcOm0+ZNEInQJWuVFsL9To06AQ3pABvN694jERT538 PM2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532sFKE/jbp/C/ZLCW2MgAp497ztJ3mIbcg7Y5t8PcuW6fYehFeJ 3NKUTgdw+B4dGt1XHCnpzUyypQ/f3v/sFDb70LeeiVP7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTbUlvGH93PTpwXUz3Cikd54OEYP79T5woEHkNEnti/myVTcZOKuNxtW/+4VikkZ5t7uHDwANTCwByPSi1V88=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8d4d:: with SMTP id s74mr11719220ild.287.1589737952253; Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com> <bbc83c0f-87ee-dbd3-ef85-ead8fae3a151@tomh.org>
In-Reply-To: <bbc83c0f-87ee-dbd3-ef85-ead8fae3a151@tomh.org>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 10:52:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA93jw7BEkZuSSaU90nT7AizUc-vsC1Fp=C0DBZTr2d7CNdzwA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/-HUF9VqUmY-9djhwRbb42PFAoME>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 17:52:34 -0000

If I had to make a choice, today, I would vote for option 2.
ECT(1) as a network output. The present conception of SCE "fails safe"
in far more circumstances than the present conception of L4S appears to.

The internet as a whole needs to retain and improve upon, the existing strong
signal of congestion that the RFC3168 compliant CE indicator brings to it, and
furthermore, more fully deploy the existing IETF AQMs in more places
where it matters.

However, I vote for option 3, with a rationale to follow. (The chair's
question also wanted
a list of tests, but that got too long for this vote, so I am moving that to the
rationale)

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman

dave@taht.net <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email