Re: [tsvwg] Another tunnel/VPN scenario (was RE: Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Thu, 03 December 2020 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B707F3A033F for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bO0Kz5xTG82 for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEAF3A03C9 for <>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.lan ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BFAE1B001B2; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:41:00 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jonathan Morton <>, Bob Briscoe <>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 16:40:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Another tunnel/VPN scenario (was RE: Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 16:41:09 -0000

Just on that last point, perhaps we should be clearer by what 
"experiment" means.

On 03/12/2020 15:52, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> Frankly, the sooner the WG understands and accepts that basic fact, the sooner we can move to a viable solution - one which does not redefine CE from the semantics established by RFC-3168 and RFC-8511, and hence does not place burdens on networks which have no interest in the L4S experiment.

I think we need to be clear that I understand the proposal is to an 
Internet-wide experimental deployment.

If succesful, I'd expect we'll discover things in the deployment that 
will make us consider new things, before this is approved as a PS. The 
WG might later decide to obsolete RFC-3168, or L4S, or neither, or both. 
That will be to decide in future. In persepective, about 15 years passed 
before the previous EXP use of ECT(1) was made made historic, enabling this.


G. Fairhurst, School of Engineering