Re: [tsvwg] Transport Area Working Group (tsvwg) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-02-20 CHANGED

Sebastian Moeller <> Sun, 09 February 2020 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39540120047; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:30:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSH672KhasnW; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D2E9120018; Sun, 9 Feb 2020 10:30:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1581273014; bh=umbBL4741JMppKXVNHTFHXdTe+eD55z/nN6X+IcDdtE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=JXvHvomjMB3TWRQ2K/jtG9zhwoNX8gnk9kJJ+a3fXALlrgImH303ayE66hmSQtfZT Mr5Em2Y6AfVA1oG0NzqqzpErN4fGsas8WECqGOzH9G52Uy+cQ3sY/WBRwjH+rzMkC2 8sTodQ4sgreX2IqEci5JIWZQD1xBk+DtJMaQyiPw=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from hms-beagle2.lan ([]) by (mrgmx004 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M6DWs-1j7T380zLE-006cJy; Sun, 09 Feb 2020 19:30:14 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 19:30:12 +0100
Cc: IETF-Announce <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: IESG Secretary <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:7P5+We5sS64USVbDEvihlwKEtZhMD8BBQNDf9aiWqRlePuPD9Pk yEBPURcraakLO+Y1IJQPiGl+kqI9IflSlCGHPffDgc7Deekf1EvFbTLLSspxrMmEhoK6mvm vAnitm0CKEtDukQac4aACDOzI+UM8wAcDlqF5q1/tqc15hBmRTdk+63pPyilYGRC3/Amifi 8pdJ1Mefdco1dn1/TEgwg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:AXUtHOWYjac=:XqVoAYEXNuR5afP09mVap5 VF7BnI3JUAV/VOeJaHmSp4I/jYl1sauQP41+EhhRcE7ygIzoEoJcQAKQVVEsJ3IyTBLpTLX+i WoN95+ohx6EPdZDk0qWA7MpKKfsXgO6nEuNHQT3PgCkdlEcZo9Pj+a+eIihL79iitpg7bQYss S2L0t265K+oUeQF0urvdYfqtBOAP6XxZmfRjU6lwlGUgxc4PBv95CZjauVVL9GdZhsrb3RZiA xCzrkCf0yAPfbQfilsWiwMZD7aZeWSMO2UHDFH6RrxStHVgOGB3L0ZAT+JEc9B8aFnx5OalZT YI3OBctRvFyw3p+kYag+hLcwxDX7ZhPS39QbDvE8C8ZYpVsJt+k3n1in+bzve3l4I1BZXvJJM bZHXbP1AbEbZzwTGbIpuVXDL9/1yH+tmdSkoCHvdqOC6ctCvvySBqXQT5A+6bmZjxHn+uctYb sTbkQFK6wRJ9ECSxz4Mxe3c8OM3ssnT3xIpaJDVTl1Iw7V7RQ2H3CoVg5FbUMb3c99QFXjZJ8 6AzEkvlYojqJjfRMRLVsEOi1OH+4RmcJ9gBozfFsrkXJssLpVEzzgg/8ZMYn+WubYRq6RR9YK 3Afo3VT9sskaHAiETlKClrRcxcCHqfVI7Ovf3UhyrWpJizfctcvfPoCnOv0K5V8c6U0OopITi cXH0V6tMZEczTwfm4APTxsGBTW1IKqKIEDMyZpWD+/K5ll+/+fijAtWNc9HsPNwzkbkq+anEz uPIOM21NgLaCFrMwIVb0WQUTMfqq3riwRxdTpxQBh4G5GVqHvb9NbP01r6oZ7fSGtsS16BJfl ivjiFSMHpqPGCuymRwW3+Y4jHP9phj9OGV5RKoRiIesGlmfwGxIYx1A7ZnBd7vI9Sz5mit/3E w6HvfENAxJqBqKxg6K4aim+Mor3H500J6FbdevlG0S7zX62gPEq+91NVsetD22zAdwqPsHvIM Anur7KU6MPziVmvyqRv0wt04RrmW2QN5bZsMWQ1Kh30WdbP9e2IbgtbZU08Iy0EJ/ZDHSJuDY YyGW+g6XoqsnvaKFa1a28nsVBoED01SQ/bHGWdCarA7apI+811PpXkvXEsR4t9VqP+K1RM2ic QMXMqfjkSkG+Mu/RTcUUImWFQZppfBkisaW8ahfynBPM8mIgEyVboo1ij8FpYcssAmWZYUuyB cS8s8dC+A64I2mfj22Gy456xB+y0Lc2eOr/HtPETYui33yFEX4bfz04bKiCA/9mQfOP7Ygbct B5lR7zNy1pJJUR8aU
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Transport Area Working Group (tsvwg) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-02-20 CHANGED
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2020 18:30:21 -0000

Dear All,

great that we have the rescheduled agenda, thanks a lot.

I would respectfully like to make the following comments on the agenda:

1) I am delighted to see a full 30 minutes slot for getting an update on SCE, as I am quite interested to learn about progress/challenges there (and it unfortunately, fell off the end at the last ietf meeting)

2) I would ask whether we could add a dedicated topic to discuss #28 whether dualq is up to the task it was designed to solve and whether the current level of achieving said design tasks is sufficient to merit roll-out as part of an ietf-endorsed experiment

3) Regarding point 4.1 "#20 ECT(1) codepoint usage", I wonder whether we could get a recap of how the ietf/wg reached consensus on ECT(1) as a combined heuristic label for flows promising a 1/p type marking response as well as a request for sorting into the L4S-low latency queue? And how we can mitigate the side-effects of that overloading to make any experimentation safe for the existing internet.

4) Should we not also explicitly discuss how to make the L4S safe for experimental roll-out, including mitigation strategies for the already known side-effects and how to implement a roll-back in case the experiment does not achieve its goals (including an explicit list of measurable goals)?

Best Regards

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 20:35, IESG Secretary <> wrote:
> The Transport Area Working Group (tsvwg) Working Group will hold
> a virtual interim meeting on 2020-02-20 from 09:00 to 11:00 America/New_York.
> Agenda:
> 1. Agenda bashing (chairs - 5 min)
> 2. Update on status and near-term plans for the set of L4S drafts (Bob? - 5 min)
>     - Chair request: Think about adding an explicit &quot;Open Issues / Future Work&quot; type of section in the architecture draft to consolidate a list of things still being worked in the context of TCP Prague and/or caveats and unknowns people should be aware of when deploying this Experimental work.
> 3. Update on L4S &amp; TCP Prague implementation, test, evaluation (Greg/Bob/Koen? - 15 min)
> 4. L4S Issues List Discussion (goal is to see if we can agree on what more needs to be done on each issue to suffice for Experimental/Informational RFCs):
>    4.1 Discuss status on (Bob - ~30 min):
>          #16 on classic ECN interaction
>          #21 CE codepoint semantics (closely related to #16)
>          #20 ECT(1) codepoint usage
>    4.2  Discuss plans forward to address (Bob - ~15 min):
>           #26 on admission control
>           #27 on terminology
>           #22 on deployment feasibility
>            #24 on evaluation &amp; testing results
>     4.3 (We will try to handle the issues below by mailing list prior to the meeting)
>           If needed, discuss close-out of (~15 min):
>           #25 on IPR
>           #18 on loss detection in time-units
>           #23 on implementation status
>           #19 on the single codepoint
>           #17 on FQ interaction  
> 5. SCE Update (Morton/Heist/etc. - ~30 min)
> Information about remote participation:
> Remote participation information will be obtained at the time of approval.  Plan to use IETF WebEx.