Re: [tsvwg] Draft TSVWG minutes from the meetings in Montreal

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Sat, 10 August 2019 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 94612120091 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 rJqJ5Ct5g8SD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:13 -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 77A89120045 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id p17so94171934ljg.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DkCSe0POmEsyEdN25Xcocvjt+ckX3bfH0TeT7VgkI8E=; b=UjgLlE8vrxrNCoEnNaSAIodjB3J8z/gMWhp26zAtfuuKfnX9tGAmtZSSGxAtEffTrb 5lPJw1bkhlXrZR7VHj8nKDEMPp3zVtnl9dGRi/bhxamnKAWAdfdmmaXPz9Z7Wr1grPVI wJUInb+vAI/Mf1oQZ0XWB5mOIT6PaZ+oN4gIdA1ptfAtX+UiNcXRkEb/hNimLs+WGCCO kzMlJiTJQLayPkbBr595T8rSTx5YveDdX4ER4QGw42AkTlhA+8Q5PhLWhEav7N6YxOUG KgHklFVZp5fTtrXYE5ykWdb3xvx3hcVoqsO7L2pBKl0BbOVYxU4KkcfyI3jRLqgQZWTh 3a8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DkCSe0POmEsyEdN25Xcocvjt+ckX3bfH0TeT7VgkI8E=; b=Gbc0+cRHhHvl1qM2CRFz9AtgznSPt46ZqoZGldUAslcDhvXi+KGs0T+Za5WYA/fusE wB/x0DVKYQieiddMkt/Aw9lBDtSBakKjYcpMbH+yw/W3tgp54k15rheHuFofwfxUHy3S Yn8WhxS1iY0PGnFsJXOWxdUZ/DbQ5fyPNjwf+o7y+1PfDJ8fADk1eHgfMkYHxD/74mhk oqlhDa4d/psPli6MBgJeWOtfawVRptzuWMlDWRdv0WwTZYi1ZUtP8Yk2N0fcQgaDi7br lhs3A8PvAGKx+Q0jQArjYL6YLupnThkvryzTfszcx/kJLrogu26knYrovTGyvTz7xwnF FsjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXfb58aiRrtdG9VONU98N0I7XwAoRy3gZ6g2s7Uua5Za5GhbUTM zx9Pa0Y+aiqZ9w+et/BT6ctbRsJS
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwKione4V5qVRl8Lj0FmuG3YkgXi1Mi83YEuKulF2/uv/PekbM7i6mFkukS75kq683embAuNQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3008:: with SMTP id w8mr13910433ljw.13.1565425331659; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-237-193-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.237.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 25sm19838551ljn.62.2019.08.10.01.22.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D4E766A.6000107@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:22:09 +0300
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C079902E-8347-4F2A-8C2A-8C840F0847D0@gmail.com>
References: <5D4E766A.6000107@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/EKfUnfN6-y5IEWsoiqHYXpkGZ7w>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Draft TSVWG minutes from the meetings in Montreal
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:22:16 -0000

> On 10 Aug, 2019, at 10:46 am, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> The Chairs have uploaded draft notes from the meetings to the materials.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-tsvwg-03
> 
> Please let us know if there are any factual errors in the notes or corrections to names, etc. Thanks again to the volunteers who helped take these notes!

I have a few proposed corrections:

> Jonathan Morton: I have 4 topics:
> f) IETF approval is required to use ECN.  
> g) Incremental deployment requires compatibility, which has not been demonstrated so far.
> a) Effective congestion control is required. FQ_Codel is the most deployed AQM. With the current Codel, the time to reach the correct marked rate would be 4 seconds (?). 4 seconds for a link with 10ms is not effective.
> b) Fair queueing is fairly robust. My concern is when there are two consecutive bottlenecks. In our experiments we have found issues.

Referring to the notes I was reading from:

Under point F, I was not referring to ECN use in general - that would be absurd as it's a current RFC - but to the Congestion Response/Marking Differences experiments provided for in RFC-8311, due to the effective redefinition of the CE codepoint proposed by L4S.

Under point A, I was referring to Codel in general, not FQ-Codel, although most actual deployments of Codel are indeed as part of FQ-Codel.  The inadequate response of DCTCP (and thus presumably Prague) to Codel is of only slightly less concern in FQ form, due to the consecutive-bottleneck problem alluded to in point B (where the upstream bottleneck may be a dumb FIFO).

The following would better capture the above:

f) IETF approval is required for ECN semantic changes, even under RFC-8311.
[...]
a) Effective congestion control is required. Codel is the most deployed AQM.  (etc.)

> Wes: Does anyone want to bring up IPR?
> Rod: There are people who want to speak to IPR are not present.
> Jonathan: Dave Taht wants to speak to this later, he could not join.
> Chairs: Please read the IPR summary and decide on your own position.

Here, the name I mentioned was Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen, not Dave Taht.  I'm sure Dave also has much to say on the subject, but it was Toke who had specifically said he wanted to comment that day.

 - Jonathan Morton