Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 19 November 2019 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 2C769120940 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:58:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 OI_iz12s19o7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (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 3FFFF12093F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1iX4xp-000CUr-By; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:58:45 +0100
Received: from dhcp-9b1e.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.155.30]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1iX4xo-0002hq-Fz; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:58:45 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB44250C10A1C7448F82FAD366C24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:58:37 +0800
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B173E1E-9576-47BC-91DC-296D124BE1B4@ifi.uio.no>
References: <HE1PR07MB4425A6B56F769A5925FF5AA0C2720@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0F5F9FA9-FC09-4679-8A6A-45F93A6A6ED5@akamai.com> <HE1PR07MB44257A563B5DB08450E249E5C24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <BEE6B55E-85C9-45FF-AF59-B1A68DB55C77@ifi.uio.no> <HE1PR07MB44250C10A1C7448F82FAD366C24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 31.133.155.30 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.155.30; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-9b1e.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 74B31C65C3BBD422CEFEB1597E77B3F782E8A597
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/8P7YO1SLqztkP2IytVL9jxWmCpc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce
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, 19 Nov 2019 14:58:51 -0000


> On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:30 PM, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael
> Fair point, or perhaps in this discussion, I should use another word than "fair" to avoid confusion ūüėä
> 
> Yes. I know the paper discussed CoDel, what I wanted to point out however that CoDel has its own share of issues related to link underutilization at higher RTTs, meaning that the 5ms threshold is not good enough in all cases. My interpretation is that for classic traffic you need to set the thresholds differently depending on what RTT you expect your e2e traffic to experience.

Right. Indeed, that’s why ABE (RFC8511) exists.

Cheers,
Michael