IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Wed, 13 May 2020 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
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 D77E33A0D06 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 l-KPK712W6ri for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA1503A0AF6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 04D30RHX075138; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 04D30RTL075137; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202005130300.04D30RTL075137@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 20:00:27 -0700
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CvA1iJ0DfWHGtMCNmXHVuuoQxGA>
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 03:00:30 -0000

I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network.

But pragmatically I must object to the boxs you have force us
to limit our selection to.  Especially given the direct association
of making this an L4S vs SCE "vote" by the qualifying conditions
attatched to options 1 and 2.


> **
> 
> *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.
> 
> 
>  1.
> 
>     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.
> 
>  2.
> 
>     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.
> 
>  3.
> 
>     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.
> 
> *
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email