IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Adi Masputra <adi@apple.com> Tue, 12 May 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adi@apple.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 0C1523A0DC7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.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 bOQcHMrLcAPf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [17.151.62.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A583A0DD2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04C03LaH000949 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:37 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=rDyKC1HcAyCUXLr4aopnmtP911h5pAB2QBDB13Xc28c=; b=qPid2QNzoK4bj4EtKYYqM5wmy1wAlRfCYMdA1jXNunFeRapyGQgJzWx7j+dzDRbzTh+c jjEaxwDDu+W3m40ZSqnOE8l1+bOdfwI5VEQUf1AhNaGFs3DQ5fBJJBUvYLW1bR5bpOkS fWeLVZHhiPaAF0AXap3pPKnAajWYGONir2APkLDNXP0D7XqtrBHTmR9niDS6lmntLGBP mSEhQjbDBsQnGvCZCQDY7iigr6pPXgoBqPu9PPKjH02vzvE5winePxmaNyzR5LuNWwRU XC8HmwVCKxcAftPGYnWbBOX1DKhs3obRRNor+MakUkGlRpVIQCP9PgkVeG3nbpev8KXv ZA==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.152]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com with ESMTP id 30wuey13ag-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:37 -0700
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.16]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPS id <0QA600XNUZ8SP630@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com> for tsvwg@ietf.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) id <0QA600A00YO7MC00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 72331d9704b5cff746a5073c5572a4eb
X-Va-E-CD: 07ddde8b1467bbfa19b42426bf29f7e0
X-Va-R-CD: 146c65f3cf0343acab172874e8356080
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 17448bca-4460-401a-87df-5bd4871ff277
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 72331d9704b5cff746a5073c5572a4eb
X-V-E-CD: 07ddde8b1467bbfa19b42426bf29f7e0
X-V-R-CD: 146c65f3cf0343acab172874e8356080
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: f2cf53c6-6710-4714-9b4f-e019758fd2af
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-11_11:2020-05-11, 2020-05-11 signatures=0
Received: from [17.234.95.222] (unknown [17.234.95.222]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPSA id <0QA600KCTZ8QB300@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adi Masputra <adi@apple.com>
Message-id: <1F4E9438-1224-45F0-97B8-9A5807E3D5BA@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_697AC2F3-1D24-48F5-A704-15B0EE5BAFFA"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 17:12:26 -0700
In-reply-to: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-11_11:2020-05-11, 2020-05-11 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6Nnki0m1yyomuWp23oRqzliWLkQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
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: Tue, 12 May 2020 00:13:02 -0000

I support option 1: using ECT(1) as an input signal.

Adi

> On May 4, 2020, at 11:15, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
>  In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>). 
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU>] for context on this question.
> 
> I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.
> I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
> There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email