Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Fri, 08 May 2020 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.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 D3EA83A0E97 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 pWkHmn5oh_NC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B268E3A0E11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 048K5iju019954 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:08:42 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Qy8Jo2D2fvSYqBO9BmG12s/Nb+l0gcsXROu1FVZQTrQ=; b=Usn94PV/drSJo97SgrxB1SSRrXGqaUdYVr4xSmsc8EYGi6c8aV4jO4/C1lGvSOD4r7dY 13ZhzlxLaIrzxmXaIcAt4Tu4MpANF4QVLnowM26aDtYfK3L/lxiD/uth5sTJXW+rr4lw RhB6MVYQcYa0oV0u5KJHrppFh07eIJAWt2LbsSdBsirWPFaRW5WDWfu0AOCJ07L6OMLj gHpOToziz9nX3oGHfadEVsv1TmKxd0E4530DRlfW3KX4sp6wIMb9yhk8D3C+58/WgO2E cnUcjCUDWoONP1zuan4CDoVtAqZzm7I/BEhMfvujZa2fK8v45VSbthRjLpSx1DhKGpZJ zQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint7 (a72-247-45-33.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.33] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 30vte99vvw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2020 21:08:42 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 048K2bEB013598 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:08:41 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com with ESMTP id 30wd95gddt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2020 16:08:41 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:08:40 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 8 May 2020 16:08:40 -0400
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
Thread-Index: AQHWIj/9E8paBVmBx0+MCWvcHHNHE6iaHFQAgAS4EAD//52+gA==
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:08:40 +0000
Message-ID: <DC401DCB-D838-4CB5-A895-72FEF64FBE60@akamai.com>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com> <CACL_3VGmDsvE32W9VgJZ69XHrHeyU1r-UzzEwgpGrFBn2eicqw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB40455AD06019D8AFD0CEDCAE83A20@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB40455AD06019D8AFD0CEDCAE83A20@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.89.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3F3021DFDA83DE498F63BC82059E123D@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-08_18:2020-05-08, 2020-05-08 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=692 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2005080169
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-08_18:2020-05-08, 2020-05-08 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=730 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005080169
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HmMSJzP7olOC_ThHa9A3FEHwKfE>
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: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:08:50 -0000
I am also squarely in group 2: I don't think L4S can be made safe without significant architectural changes. However, I currently support ECT(1) as input, with an important qualifier. The qualifier is that my position is contingent on a specific suggestion for a significant architectural change to L4S that I currently believe makes it possible to use ECT(1) as an input safely. (If the suggestion turns out to be unsupportable for some reason, I revert to my previously expressed preference for ECT(1) as output, with DSCP as the L4S classifier.) I regret to say that I was unable to make it concise, so I've written up a more detailed description in a separate email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/vW8eEt7V58SWPoLIJ5dklCG4WqM/ HTH. -Jake
- [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jeremy Harris
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Smith, Kevin, Vodafone Group
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Roland Bless
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Anders Bloom
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tommy Pauly
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Uma Chunduri
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Kyle Rose
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Holland, Jake
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ozer, Sebnem
- [tsvwg] 3) "There is a specific test or tests I n… Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ranganathan, Ram
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Paul Vixie
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Adi Masputra
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Asad Sajjad Ahmed
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Christoph Paasch
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Lars Eggert
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Andreas Petlund
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jana Iyengar
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Joakim Misund
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Vividh Siddha
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) David Pullen
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Campos, Angel, Vodafone Spain
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Karthik Sundaresan
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) philip.eardley
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tom Henderson
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) K. K. Ramakrishnan
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Liyizhou
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Dan Siemon
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mohit P. Tahiliani
- [tsvwg] More testing (was: Consensus call on ECT(… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Roland Bless
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Steven Blake