Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Mon, 04 November 2019 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 9C553120018; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 TzErkFD5GpYE; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEF26120115; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A63D25A20; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:22:01 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1572895321; bh=g1KHKlEksR4DLG5MVatm54DfzMf73v7FF0EHvYRLRy8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K0s4tjvWV/m1FYpS5ljSxu/a/Om2n4qF0tB0i3alEqAdVldHc1zZ/9UmAXoYDkXpq xBmNvnsz0YYCDFr5A6TOdRgaULtiuG5MXJWqcqXEhQL3Gcu+xW1SH0emxetNyLVgOu jxdM+A8V1XhwsbpHOHc9LHoefy6orwzvrRjYsN6k=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6CsZ0keuQEfy; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:21:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:21:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.61]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:21:59 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
CC: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
Thread-Index: AQHVUALBEtXgqT1yKUqbs6+qKMgfv6cI1m+NgHLuuYCAACE53v//8bUAgAASJQ4=
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:21:59 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>, <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88Erznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/4dJUL_LxR9seEqg2dp1j3fxXLcI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 19:22:06 -0000

I agree. „non-L4S“ may be even better.



Michael





Von: Rodney W. Grimes<mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 20:17
An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>; Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking



> You can e.g. use ?non-L4S-enabled TCP?.
>
> Terminology does matter to me given that I strongly disagree to any use of ?marketing language? when it comes to TCP.

My concern here of use of terms like, legacy, classic, new, old
is that they are pretty much all of the relative from and thus
ambiguous over time.

newReno is new only relative to Reno, that is fairly clear,
but if I said newTCP or oldTCP with what frame should the
reference be evaluated.

I believe in the case of L4S the time invariant term would be,
as Michael suggests above, "non-L4S".   Note that enabled
for me is a noise word in this context, and TCP may or may
not be needed depending on context, but for literal replacement
of Legacy or Classic "non-L4S" is invariant over time.

Rod

> Michael
>
>
> Von: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 19:09
> An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
> Michael,
>
> Previously, I have been told not to use the term standard for RFCs that are not standards. RFC5681 is 'only' a draft standard. This is why, in the IETF at least, I avoid using the term "standard TCP congestion control". I generally call it Reno when referring to the congestion control.
>
> I have never, to my knowledge, used the term classic TCP, or classic TCP congestion control.
>
> And I rarely use the term legacy, and if I do I'm happy to have alternatives suggested.
>
> I've checked the L4S drafts, and there is one phrase that I shall leave in ecn-l4s-id: "the traditional TCP Reno additive increase", because this is correctly used to mean the traditional increase (in numerous AIMD CCs), not traditional TCP. There was one other occurrence of "traditional TCP senders" in a whole para in an appendix that has just been deleted anyway. And in aqm-dualq-coupled there was one "legacy TCP flows" (changed to "Classic traffic" now in my local copy, using the defined term in all the L4S drafts).
>
> l4s-arch is getting a complete make-over for terminology, so I will check that next.
>
> inline...
>
>
> On 23/08/2019 15:01, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi Wes,
>
>
>
> I?d like to add a smaller item that is mostly editorial and can hopefully be sorted just out by re-wording, albeit it may require a careful analysis of all documents.
>
>
>
> As already noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY<https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY> , I object to the terms ?traditional TCP? and also ?classic TCP? or ?legacy? TCP when referring to a TCP implementation according to IETF standards-track RFCs.
>
>
>
> To me as a non-native native speaker, all these terms have a negative connotation. I also think this language is typical to marketing material.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion but, as a native speaker, I don't think 'classic' or 'traditional' are particularly pejorative, tho they can be when used in a context that intends them to be. They also mean "stood the test of time". I find 'legacy' has a connotation of marketing-speak, but it's not that bad.
>
> This is an enduring problem when trying to improve on the good work that other people have done before you (which is the context of everything we are doing). We need a word that distinguishes the old from the new, but we don't want to completely trash the thing that has already been successful, but had its day.
>
> Nonetheless, it is also important not to be too precious about past work. We all recognize that Reno TCP is unscalable and has problems. IMO, it is OK to describe technologies that have had their time with negative connotations. Indeed, you have been an author (with me) of an RFC on open issues in congestion control.
>
> I notice you haven't suggested an alternative term for "the thing(s) we are trying to improve on". Not surprising, because it's difficult.
>
> When we (the L4S developers) were first looking for a term for the non-L4S queue and the non-L4S service, we didn't want to use 'legacy' for the above reasons, but we did want to imply pre-existing, so we decided on 'classic', which we all felt had a generally neutral connotation, but said what we meant.
>
> Finally, I do not want this issue to take up any time that would detract from technical issues.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> My prefered term when referring to TCP according to standards-track specification is ?standard TCP?. I would also be fine with other terms as long as they are neutral and make clear that experiments do not replace, deprecate, or outperform standards.
>
>
>
> Similarly, I think that term such as ?classic? is not appropriate for the TCP standard congestion control (?Reno?). As of today, this is the TCP congestion control algorithm on standards track that has IETF consensus. The term in the TCPM charter is ?TCP standard congestion control?. I also think that terms such as ?Reno-compatible? or the like would be neutral.
>
>
>
> Note that I do not object to the terms ?classic ECN?, ?legacy ECN?, ?legacy AQM? or the like, i.e., if the context is ECN and not specifically TCP or the TCP congestion control. I believe it is up to the TSVWG do decide if this term shall be used for compliance to RFC 3168. I have no strong opinion on that. As far as I can see, most use of the term ?classic? is in this context and I don?t ask for changes in those cases.
>
>
>
> Some use of the term ?Classic Service? may also require careful review to clearly separate it from TCP Standard behavior.
>
>
>
> Note that some use of the term ?Classic TCP? would probably also apply to ?Classic QUIC? once the QUIC standard is finished. To me as a non-native speaker, it would be really strange to use the term ?classic? in the context of a brand-new transport protocol. IMHO in that case the term ?classic? would be even more confusing.
>
>
>
> I also add the TCPM list in CC to ensure consistency.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Michael (with no hat)
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. August 2019 07:08
> An: tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Betreff: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
>
>
> I created tickets in the TSVWG "trac" tool in order to help keep track
> of the individual things that look like they should be addressed in
> progressing L4S document set:
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/report/1?sort=ticket&asc=1&page=1
>
> I'll try to update these based on the ongoing discussions, updates,
> etc., but it will make it very easy if you happen to mention the ticket
> numbers or some key words in threads and messages, when significant.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

--
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org