Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps
Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Thu, 11 March 2021 21:35 UTC
Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 12F3B3A0D58 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 X-LxLwdAqg6e for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 22CB03A0D60 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id s17so4072709ljc.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=tTuCalNruNGUgLqkw/kQugnpCUHvmsnxzdEsnEeKOZI=; b=Y//GhQRev/z2lxEjF90uLizHAxFo9vIeAAVavc6eax12F036cSPpCdTesMpI/p4d4o lZ5hJJpyCuIPpZDP3bHX2QYJVeWzDiqVKdT3w1isruny3LyEh9Jurr4b5mXS4onniEuU m7mbPyMPQT/r+8IHAlU6JollQ75sf86anMmBOg71Ba9gKO0AY8vK5eoVDlxzQ6iTvdxK BIvUNEC3II+ORpbXNHc9yFyTpR9eAyoHtS5gn6WkWu/AEDmDh3wUKyHiagDzwK8+DagN tVlimFfO/fgY4xk2Kcf0jIQridwJ9x4hkF+/20mVdH+DcoCF/oHsFPxy2Y/JxA8tHpQu 4eug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=tTuCalNruNGUgLqkw/kQugnpCUHvmsnxzdEsnEeKOZI=; b=IoeS2r0J1yd9+wBacAqoSj9G7bl6QdIX2AFqhwSPaqUJTU8fGVNZmBiZgoiQbeWA8G dCKXbEVjW5Pe/YbH5ZP1MRrns4XIPsj7JATdXUvDEZ9woX873/UfdrJSk2y6bAOGcLti jvM4GcpahyMORHi7q59FHX8zp/km4UDloO+mh9DTVP4ccm9EJXikDLAY41gI/jCrpFlo 4Sc8GqlcbEhd42xT4Nrqz0cS6oGWSYzz8emgzVaJO8i+mA8eDUxDQzlI6z5m/U1L5J7v jk22pr5hkZ6OduEv3/Tq3cYkpsB/zpsSZcKRHXzTMh7oDIWBwsaCrdVz+YWfYw4kuqee BW5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53250pk1raiWRZpywYNtgKewbEYTYwxkJeg+TZn8JX0Rnehmxhy5 NBwIZ/Z+yXj+8YaF437LusVHnapvCjY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQB8kJW2oDiK4rI/6BTroYztIL9Zi15rMJ2i9kM6HUk43crKsdUUDDQt4yncgf2DNVXS31+g==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:504d:: with SMTP id v13mr508574ljd.92.1615498520420; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (87-93-215-52.bb.dnainternet.fi. [87.93.215.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c19sm1348471ljk.60.2021.03.11.13.35.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <83559d3f-6004-118a-cde2-ec999fc8c483@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:35:18 +0200
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE5B87E4-DD60-435E-80AD-01C09F13D173@gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR19MB4045FAC079C74FC262005BF483F10@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <92283815-f81a-ba86-fe63-7925e23e31f6@bobbriscoe.net> <MN2PR19MB404513C22FE4025C31261BC783CC0@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <5d8f0031-1aee-9e41-7860-04a46a89607e@bobbriscoe.net> <MN2PR19MB4045305CA7D5673C554BCBA383919@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <ee0c9cd2-608c-ef69-ef84-892cd4f17204@bobbriscoe.net> <MN2PR19MB404522F073A03BA2F866604E83909@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <83559d3f-6004-118a-cde2-ec999fc8c483@bobbriscoe.net>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/3dd5oHgXIAI45oQPoyDx5Ya_DFc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps
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: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:35:26 -0000
> On 11 Mar, 2021, at 11:18 pm, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote: > > Where does the concern about transport protocol independence come from? No-one expects that to be a problem for L4S implementers. If it's not expected to be a problem, then there shouldn't be any difficulty meeting the requirement, should there? I think the concern arises because there is not yet even *one* complete implementation that meets *all* of the necessary requirements (including, for example, good behaviour when encountering an RFC-3168 AQM). This points to the likely difficulty of a second implementer's task in replicating the feat. - Jonathan Morton
- [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Livingood, Jason
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Livingood, Jason
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps Sebastian Moeller