IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] status on L4S terminology improvements

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Wed, 29 July 2020 11:59 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 576613A09D9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 VbPns6GMOH4T for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 A05D03A09CF for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 04:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED44625A13; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:59:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1596023964; bh=/Pa0muBA427Nn0I7pA2WLdjtKDZMiQy7asgSF+iF0U8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LxlPxnYNbO9jFCtKqIQRkG7d6FOA31yt7ntWYs/ojWRvf1ZIDdf+CZGLC2MP4tmox ++Lvsd4iUJY8tQvYQxCRqmYJ6IOPpml0r771e5JFH4MOr0JboNq74Fl0UQuLBiEtFJ VqHV/F82lswpvTGbB1qggXp7/Z2XrjlWRaJYAa+Q=
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 FaGA3_hXzjsB; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:59:22 +0200 (CEST)
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; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:59:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.171]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:59:22 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] status on L4S terminology improvements
Thread-Index: AQHWZPtGUPJ95Gfq406c2wj9fFuPB6keb12g
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:59:21 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2DCDB882@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <154187e2-0ba6-9b9b-2234-2f5d7caa0eb5@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <154187e2-0ba6-9b9b-2234-2f5d7caa0eb5@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.48.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/53O4z0nTU1fYosxuHOxM9u5rkAs>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] status on L4S terminology improvements
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 11:59:27 -0000

> Interested parties should check over the current L4S drafts in regard to
> whether the last couple rounds of editing have fully addressed the
> tracker issue on "terminology improvements" (reduction of "hype",
> removal of "classic TCP", and checking all other uses of 'traditional',
> 'classic', and 'legacy').
> 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/27
> 
> It looks to me like Greg's comment at the bottom of that ticket
> summarizes the status decently, and this is now in need of other
> eyeballs to verify that this has been adequately addressed and can be
> closed.

Indeed, the terminology in the documents has improved.

I don't plan to use some of the remaining "classic" terminology in this document myself. This also includes other related terms such as "'less unscalable' CUBIC", for which IMHO better alternatives could be found.

Yet, authors of INFO and EXP documents probably have some degree of freedom what language to use - and I am not a native speaker. In the IETF compromises are necessary and one cannot always get 100%...

As a result, as long as I am the only one who has no plans to use some of the words picked by the authors, maybe it is time for the WG to move on and focus on the other issues.

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email