IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Wed, 06 May 2020 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 EE25B3A0A50 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 ZMvaavzqlgwk for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 D2F3A3A0937 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 05:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id y185so892270vsy.8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kXfLsNzrqY5Jz2VQdQufLQgbCRh+rk+3jPxFSJvfX5k=; b=Gk2Hyyx0k/OIE/RP+QsUuSttja1Mjvr6qn4WyMdN64zq3R9fB7jJykX3j3VNu7DH1t mKukeGTPbF4Poit7/JoBQSs1xVe15T0JJGiXnfU3BOxsKKWgmPuABljFYA8IgESuyrUK lxZjCRAHuf1WxIGOCEo7FibAi42DlqkI7RtwA=
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:to:cc; bh=kXfLsNzrqY5Jz2VQdQufLQgbCRh+rk+3jPxFSJvfX5k=; b=jbGaLVxeqsR8jhg/eplBzTtYeVnpTN5bQR2muG3HwSHvpXXcS7XtHyVX5hY1RW4VWZ nSD0TDf4an6sG434LhVOGwk4I0HvEPJiWVhJcCrG5LKug8/QhwvstSgpxyt8bdm/Uz2s z/lVIck2V3Coj/ayLNkpLCYN7i4aqeegZ1ABkc9QgFFuFVNYfQ/xnHvD35OkLqvt/+MG gAD5dV/CKiST/zA3qj3pLMPiKQinatXziquHMIG9MxQ/D5yRPkGfL//G1QGbAbqeR1BB hA5VFsSilX0cD7mgYOeopWj3gjo5jO9Utk3G6ubuZQ5p26K3gvpx1zhyPMoHqkS6W30F NC4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaAUgCxKYzCh/tPD+8LHrsi8vjaEFQe8HjcYB2UHbtOM9TJ52k2 AWwuVGy15uor2M8jusYxOZ8Q3QITavCyScAMxas2XTNw0Uo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIZ7AoWGMMp1hxkvE8GejsyTJyLyOiMJ08DR9Wxy1Ayni4Dfkq/Ldm+LmEg+vr2aggHQnbz0m/0hBysJjM3Zo4=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:fa84:: with SMTP id f4mr6380256vsq.42.1588769638588; Wed, 06 May 2020 05:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 08:53:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nVCvxBc5d4tAe7=qK23bvG6w8m+hdksxbVsWxDrOu=K1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f03b4d05a4fa4130"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/-x4tH7CwPswsKV9CDdHJf50xJBg>
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: Wed, 06 May 2020 12:54:02 -0000

I support using ECT(1) as output, but that doesn't really capture my
thoughts on the issue at hand.

In accordance with the chairs' ask, I will post my thoughts in a new thread.


On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:15 PM Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> *In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following
> viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a
> different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the
> list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org
> <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>). *
>
>
>
>
>
> * If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting
> video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU>] for context on this
> question. 1. I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This
> is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does
> not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the
> remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current
> drafts. 2. I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network.
> This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the
> internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
> 3. There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision
> about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response. Please
> submit your opinion by 5/18/2020. *
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email