Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Wed, 06 November 2019 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.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 7CEED120B60 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:20:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 1IOFRHUkITIw for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 1DB30120C73 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:19:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1573024733; bh=mHdmVf0qohE/FU3qqBBXUuXja+YbQmiHrvLCfXKR754=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From; b=WojMSbSLesuvsySZ2q41zqWaLD6Uu2BnAsZGh3AA94a2Ek6kQjAi2ZpHb/M48D/uo qo1xMiZAoZt7fxKzkEOEZrB3nDcoZimXuRmcS9Qo+A7Vx+a99ngmGbgTOrw9xkheE2 IYWWGY9XyJiRt1xZ9jJOvxpHCAMTZa/rANwfsA64=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.198.62.136] ([80.187.112.39]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M2O2W-1iV0k72q9W-003v97; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:18:53 +0100
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:18:46 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>,"tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <0F339755-A4C6-486B-8751-23DFB50C7280@gmx.de>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:1il8+2cgrftYfrCneAIktk0KF1ibbJieKwa03PNaYjazvnZ7DDe ZCNOopWL6qLCf+T88Uo0sXuRCjUk7far3gXQVC/RU+fcKbKQjP3I9xs/vWGa+3bKQ8nHrrZ HmwJDngtqPYs7724lF8PaeEXeNO6l3SOAsHkeZvCCzxCQJBwvwrYQutMzycFmolIrK1zKgo TLe8bDmcUZf/xTiigNUgw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:1zdbksudZ1w=:vxoES99n28WcfG+PAoqRrx qNp0q3ac7qJpi6Bvs5aSB5c5UOI4pX8Y75e8t4j245YKsuNieO6Y/fPhe7NCr+YYmFPtA8Cyd B/39JNmQsINg8yvzOf6u4o7cg4yFPpoQpJjVqgOkK3VmOzflsycoR6kSrUX9VZYxx1lcqRTl+ aklsTI9iKyQ3c3RaOyFxVlJqqzRtRzty8udnFPjv48CybazemD/lYUeHlK/JODACMIo7btfJB 3pn+tGWw1/rkrwNpwcnT3CPIIs1NLuuTHGq59M2IDI4pR6ClCAaJ6uWXN68J/h0yC3mC1He8W b79w7Zw2tixmt3x8GrMErHWdjD8zw89TX1MBgRUNn4GaLZ48B1kI3+06kocufMMsMsP0KOZXS EXFgT4v+mvTf9HjE5scRVQMDAvG+9j9+VxM3+Ct86A2VH1743DGsBbq4bvdvOq9lksfLT2UZd 8Gp99PiQ0uHJpv+raWFWq4etFPMW0vuKpY3hhEt6Auu0O0DM+mhFmREWlWDYp5+BCELMXwCMY RBVW3uVY7N4yGA7Mi9SpCNSfxlxo3nv1oban6W0mFNGldn39QUfxY2OUgDIIY/1uPXxFwp0fm h+f2wKnpVUZTsXAASaD52xcDvrtzcr+JrK49xd5Ixl37QOqiZ1T8YCEbNwtPXmcmqc3uEw2j6 XGb4HIZV8DJh0YZNtQt0uCTqyYv/j3M126GAoSBsJfQRV1QJJ+YvgGPCQRXa5TiBN+mTrDudC nDJ4OkbUwqK/teuo1zEw0YLFPEl2d/yFNkYoGIGnfhS+ytNItgtRYbg1r2gk1qIHpmGpOwcCj KukwnTHAYmJ7WBjIZD+hKhnapujELYmAUfa5i97BsPq1he++V2WRt2SYyUk7iUr+ezLpQlTHJ mep9jb1f9e/DAN0THuyMqxEpgxax3GtIslwULaIbtqTwn7AcQ6bDT0Keor/yizOJ/6qZSNbnG Jsyy1CvkyQ0XhLaPWHjDF75Dw9BRlZUWno5nEKK6TIMU8rnP84JTG+iYhuqf0JH5ieI83BzZq kJGi7xoOS5foiwGEVoPbTFUyOVAnQyyAv9dA3sYoHLLPm6NpKEjxyUy9kxC7D8KOUArleP/1p 2BD4zKAkSkWHBrxRPchWD171Zz5Ohg9SuhWNNbV3EamghKr+hHPpwSGMQiP6kQ0yoGI5kQFfu QwgVhmvPt52tcgBvGR4S3TLsJcqEszmGIWsJFcJdV9BRcXr2tHeUcHMK0CAapqE8WsNEOLJBS h34c0GN8D9JOq959giBuKyOR+FAS4qRjFnmOegSHNbK5CIOpi2ZJbyCWDsHM=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/BFZ_snhE5Xzc7wZY-LOE4Ar3Xn4>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 07:20:08 -0000

Hi Bob,

On November 6, 2019 1:22:44 AM GMT+01:00, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
>Michael, Rod,
>
>Altho non-L4S is a reasonable idea, I think it has more of a negative 
>connotation than classic. 

        [SM] It does have the advantage though of being a testable, with classic all we know is you are talking about something that came before.

For instance, consider describing Android 
>phones as non-iPhones.

         [SM] In a discussion of say the merits of iPhones versus the competition that seems to be a decent description?

>
>Also, in the ecn-l4s-id draft, we introduce the possibility that some 
>operators might classify non-L4S traffic (DNS, VoIP, EF, NQB, etc) into
>
>the same queue as L4S traffic (and we say that in this case the queue 
>would be called the Low Latency queue). This shows that the term
>non-L4S 
>is not a good choice for a name, because the words it is made from 
>already give it a meaning of its own that conflicts with the definition
>
>you want it to have in certain contexts.

        [SM] Well, that use does not seem to interfere much, but if it does that would be another term to change, no?


>
>For example, if you did define the name "non-iPhone" to mean phones
>such 
>as Android, Windows, etc, then you would expect the phrase "non-iPhone 
>knock-off products" to mean "fake Android and Windows phones". However 
>the constituent elements "non" and "iPhone" already have a meaning of 
>their own, so in the context of this phrase, it means "fake iPhones", 
>which is the opposite of what you wanted.

        [SM] That is completely besides the point, it made me smile though and think about that passage in Alice in Wonderland about the meaning of words.


>
>The term Classic for the non-L4S service, its queue, its traffic, its 
>congestion control, etc. is defined in the terminology section of the 
>drafts, so I think it's best to live with this - it's not a significant
>
>problem. 

        [SM] If it is not significant, then changing it surely is not a problem?

Indeed, it has become widely used and widely understood since 
>2015, and changing it to non-L4S now would cause unnecessary confusion.

        [SM] By that logic nothing in the L4S drafts should be changed? If I recall correctly that is not how getting a draft past reviewers works....

>
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>On 04/11/2019 19:21, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>>
>> 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.