IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joakim Misund <joakim.misund@gmail.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <joakim.misund@gmail.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 DBFCB3A0E1A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 RVPZGha6dw3e for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BD83A0F58 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g1so10534049ljk.7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d+NqsmuKvkZsGTgdyAIw5wFoTSC67JbOB3DIjUp4lMY=; b=ZcVwSof8W+sI5X9fzf9a0mHzHmGS+U0L0G+ugSNXVauDfShPKLMgRRvxYs3bY3R33Y 2wn29kJqoE11v9gDHIJHjM6JvcdcJoWy1SBjaJ9vI1ihGICfc1sGa3+rdF8vSu/7mOdA 2WepTv3K1/SEoQWyiY5+GjmDuRm5CvH8uYJIZjoMZHltCndBsZmus8yL/mg6iFVGvDtR GpdzoA8hSc8uQzJJV4pTt1dHQ34hmb9yDrPbObxMqh1fQcELv22rSdugAmlIZAmP59BE gPfnplNu3QcRErwEjo7V4LXAVjTD+Ki9b+du61yB9AsZZ+EJ4KX42VSAJ1+Z2HvDiRG2 2LKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d+NqsmuKvkZsGTgdyAIw5wFoTSC67JbOB3DIjUp4lMY=; b=d/xvYJ2TQQVrcILmaLmkv65IwhCjPrEriID2OQUU41ANyMKCrfqrhJt9kmLf4P+sKV ZHGRqitGCNi20bZOA1bjOSxbbyrQGUwlJN7qa92Ygo8uqZmdAk8Mzf4gtzkcxiHUdo+w LN2Mpucn+ozHyxV14UMUvVrqXefE9eA+VlXS2z+HBLSZ7zx70wYqlXL+LjxqEYkWMLZH jtV6b6F3aX5fhVAiJ5DnOn7aOb1gxyVIJtmCCnz3WTgJ/SepPoNvbThCrw+s0TYpa++1 2yk1lEewds1abcqb6lwT0v0bBBi4iYKDS4BnouqjjR5bsGMU52vq3Il2mZ2RxPKDvw9I 8UxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530IaIo64Q7dKUKvhrDzXeYNRqSzHEZlyThukKZ/Kyt6Cf1Wjouz nw27xh7nlYHUPY323Jzc2CUAnWO1x1IUe59Gi34=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtuVQ63xWs1a8rHSaki23ai6tUwaQMtbklq8++O9nXgmPLokkBmcFrdFV+/qaVPn96jZwabd7ZYsrvgEY+dIM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9882:: with SMTP id b2mr16668496ljj.35.1589352405225; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
From: Joakim Misund <joakim.misund@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 08:46:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOcF-=sDWZwYhiqKu+FyipeRSorGmK=ts2vPDsknfOhx-ebp_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/6wI1kLSkPjS4ViJEgF61GA6U5fI>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 06:47:08 -0000

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

Regards,
Joakim

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:15 PM 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).
>
>
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [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