Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

Wesley Eddy <> Wed, 06 November 2019 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCD9120110 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:54:59 -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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljpcMnItIHB2 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099BC12022A for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h2so21802745qto.1 for <>; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:54:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=oyrfaMCyOW/5bioUBJg2CMPZezekC2jcVwLQjcpRVjA=; b=wBqQK/+0uMVtzjvfjRYjCnnjypscRW7IZHrt3FLOZ992i4UQSElFsLhmUd9CP0jpPK yYKexmdBI+kpuP8ITGa2ETj/RNKBLqBZnwOI6HjgOySuouTZLbec02fxtGmyKeCPNRHU IySOf4Lv8GDs401jO83Q9aYQhfoPpns/apIM7sENJlYmRbkc3Mx5izOUgxU6vTcpHRV+ 0UP2cHIaXJXBHPTphIb5RUala845teeSuZ1DTB0IgR7+elwZ1MfPY976Mdp2IfiMmY4f kUZgaiUKWWRBgocMq9zRJDN5C1AIDQapvcAmrizTTuS5DnS9IkZ3r0lclt38MISGefub 7cLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=oyrfaMCyOW/5bioUBJg2CMPZezekC2jcVwLQjcpRVjA=; b=BAC3GMr4axuq9XAE5jIuUezaI+HEWJiSO/p0zVZf8rp3JH7lpXaYHRTwcH+yb1M3o6 v1utGffxnCQcTBQgv3yhtYV8NtB9MAw5t+sK23dbxu25qdaLYzN/+6aj2iThBJZHk6VK 0Q8NwIsPzW4OBoSEz9ioaxeJ5UeaHuOAFEaNjQwh8MZ0NiU7wk86y2ITM8XSXnUlU0Tr tP2vH1TZWF5BZbqGDrY9AAp6/l6ex/VTqp2W7puQsGhOPygMOsBe8VTDIklxNu31Ml5V hFC+9fhgEE6h2xncJGb6y9ncIMgJ9Md7c+wOBqajd2zsmkDAd1tGvHbWqtqN+x8wA7ov 5dVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5WCO/VxPS9wf+9U1tKUwbyN66X/Fq88olI+9bjx3dBC8WwNVd ZQbI+0bgeJcrTn0EXq98btwKzw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxg+6i0ZQQ7JDeatRxS3FX++LOItChn3dRA8PFFluNtavXzWvHn7J4DrSAu88QgvR3oztMsOg==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:37c9:: with SMTP id j67mr4309748qtb.291.1573070072320; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j7sm9406499qkd.46.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 11:54:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "Scharf, Michael" <>, Bob Briscoe <>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:54:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A71BEBE07D033A1E69D5A15F"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 19:55:00 -0000

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.)