IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 03 December 2020 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 B707F3A033F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bO0Kz5xTG82 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEAF3A03C9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:41:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BFAE1B001B2; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:41:00 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR19MB4045A76BC832A078250E436483E00@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR0701MB2876A45ED62F1174A2462FF3C2FF0@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <56178FE4-E6EA-4736-B77F-8E71915A171B@gmx.de> <0763351c-3ba0-2205-59eb-89a1aa74d303@bobbriscoe.net> <25D05011-8193-482F-8186-A433AE3FE5C3@gmail.com>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <494cd867-58ad-2cb5-4682-0b4c4f003326@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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: <25D05011-8193-482F-8186-A433AE3FE5C3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/FfbGFBPwFWS1pF5w3EdPpoIo3dU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Another tunnel/VPN scenario (was RE: Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap)
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: 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.

Gorry

-- 
G. Fairhurst, School of Engineering

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email