Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sun, 21 March 2021 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 A326E3A12E8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 19:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wc1tmhfFJMm4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 19:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB8C3A12E7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 19:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MBP-2.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CD771B0022B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 02:55:39 +0000 (GMT)
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <e9da704b-7705-baf9-a82c-39d4fe4e7ef1@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAA93jw5+OOpFEWYXD2xTDw6+mDNx_foqn1JpR7j3v9VxWwY7qw@mail.gmail.com> <8fd946f0-0744-dbbd-d806-0c044674499b@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <FB077630-CA92-4CF0-8B87-826A880459DE@gmx.de>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <d72f71a6-f96d-83a5-9570-6a0c18731553@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 02:55:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FB077630-CA92-4CF0-8B87-826A880459DE@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/4-wI81LhrA_eiDaLCjKqSyOKH0w>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021
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, 21 Mar 2021 02:55:49 -0000

On 20/03/2021 23:54, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Gorry,
>
> I am puzzled, what has changed in regards to the documented short comings of L4S core technologies the dual queue coupled AQM and TCP Prague in respect to what is claimed in the internet drafts that would justify for the drafts to proceed in the process to gain experimental RFC status?
>
> A quick look at https://camo.githubusercontent.com/0ca81a2fabe48e8fce0f98f8b8347c79d27340684fe0791a3ee6685cf4cdb02e/687474703a2f2f7363652e646e736d67722e6e65742f726573756c74732f6c34732d323032302d31312d3131543132303030302d66696e616c2f73312d6368617274732f727474666169725f63635f71646973635f31306d735f3136306d732e737667
> should help refresh the memory how dualQ and TCP Prague fare in comparison with the status quo in the internet, a dumb FIFO in regards to equitable sharing*.
> Giving dualQ's main reason to exist is to equitably share between the new L4S LL-queue and what is called the classic-queue, this failure alone should IMHO disqualify L4S from any further discussion/progress in the WG to give team L4S the time and incentive to fix this. But alas, not my call to make so all I can do is remind everybody that these short-coming/failures are no secret and nobody should be surprised if L4S in the real internet under-deliver in its (over-)promises. 	Unless somebody can explain why this failure easily testable in the lab will not materialize in the real internet?
>
>
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
Sebastian,

I think people are well aware of your own thoughts. This email is part 
of a thread on the planned working group adoption of 
draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops.

Gorry
>> On Mar 20, 2021, at 09:13, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/03/2021 14:39, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> I think this working group has far too much on its plate, and too many
>>> unresolved issues elsewhere to adopt further work on this subject.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> If people on the list plan to read and review draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops, they should say so on this list before the end of the adoption call period.
>>
>> Completing the adoption call is considered by the Chairs as an important step towards completing the following work items:
>>
>>      Oct 2021     Submit "Identifying Modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
>>
>>      Semantics for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay" as an Experimental RFC
>>
>>      draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
>>
>>      Oct 2021     Submit "DualQ Coupled AQM for Low Latency, Low Loss and
>>
>>      Scalable Throughput" as an Experimental RFC
>>
>>      draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled
>>
>>      Oct 2021     Submit "Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S)
>>
>>      Internet Service: Architecture" as an Informational RFC
>>
>>      draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch
>>
>> Please respond by 24th March 2021,
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Gorry, David and Wes
>>
>> tsvwg co-chairs.
>>