Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Sat, 20 March 2021 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 A91383A0DE2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 hmEfvKgzdBrm for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 8ABE23A0DE0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1616284458; bh=HpCRH8a4TY4Dfj73vqcRdjnHlbh5STYHbMyD46bZpz4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=O0hY/JxZ0uq5Zuz+QxZnDNRcsmJC15/klEYMzTSTyL9jjsHiCEbOU5z7wMuV9wE5d sTxx/ZLfdVQDIC2wdNWqHCZGc9SFsw99O1xghFNVThddcy9bV5IvyYZZeTNxXWwihU mfyYHVOj+crJzdTfjIPNTlIhpzd5FNg5ItHyzhAY=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.1.72.245]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N7QxB-1ll7Dz2VIr-017pMK; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:54:18 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <8fd946f0-0744-dbbd-d806-0c044674499b@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:54:16 +0100
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB077630-CA92-4CF0-8B87-826A880459DE@gmx.de>
References: <e9da704b-7705-baf9-a82c-39d4fe4e7ef1@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAA93jw5+OOpFEWYXD2xTDw6+mDNx_foqn1JpR7j3v9VxWwY7qw@mail.gmail.com> <8fd946f0-0744-dbbd-d806-0c044674499b@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:W9syFNkadBCdny+JXehPWAOFzAeK/zzFAQ3QoSpjt68IN5wDsCD PD46Nxwl1fDKBQbGPT9CsVnyb32hCbahtz6Cdp+9PzdijJ0JQ6SVGv1bsH6jwdmI+KYZoud Yr/3pNdYpOYrlpw7nCLi9ov+sjMETCEjGcjyWLekIt7uQq82H+9A5bo6IpnFpPb1zRKxR8c 9Ny5fjPlmF6bDJgJOahUw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:/PAB80M0t0w=:cBL9epthGPPY0czNIbda5G Kt6l7JK7F98by4vfgpai8r+dljluT8Gvu/R90JcJsEKzZNZErS3yeNb00HImkINOfpaSyW5jS 2o6h7X34UBWWG/qfGFtSn5fih+zZLMpaiykgjX+LS6NQa6odmVRPtFfQ9P/WeXLHx1DAtdeih mxI2snNp8FuZAtCEZnwDEox285BbCTGYUvYJDnwVEOZzesZp6lykdXJzbYYlnj4NyZN54gU15 Qwk54mJZNylonrGUq9RAra1Iph1f1MMSDOQcb8b/rZ5uKF+MrY8VivHn35wxbOOqZnDCuTQ3J B5QifjVodTMla2R15KrVL1LSg5haMAaUQM5Yhinm6KlMX2/qOg5/lba2jENJtUmCtvA1imp/Z ZcbaFixRxXC7kud7UYtcsMpmN1EQx0SslIqHzbPMv3rs3v8CzUnpf1KtcPZOFJuHWXsznHOMc livr5glLpXcHXqlnwLl26LX720C4uHg2ZoDbQQY926gPiztv75rZcwVzGNHjZeP2wug6b2mxC 5LrHG+YxLU92cPFN1nwdbn9MS8/kBwdrZ4f1hX4bysnOQDRiJxFVesjXKfsNMxqyqSwNHrGUk yNibV1NKHOPcQycj703KL3Xc4CASQ02hKa0S9T6SOt5ICGZoCCroTkI+dSMk6L7HSawIR/Adr HG0JGusOJ12/PAd0IVl1fLBtHO+DPBrqjPjBbSwAez6pNGkSF7z++XNfwFmL+hGzx5nuBekLq Y8KVEy9M0yN8NKwo+afHDGYNkuvGMrN+UC35ZYBcO215RyHcVxrrDqMqIegDJrsrnUFHpPnYa a735C83pXQvZUYQuvQO5oE/ivSXM3dAyh4ytGA67n1NZxeMGTN/r/MfYVz00XJghHW/Neyw1q bjTLNsOwW7fhrsbAMWOs1SWkZGj5ZiSw7U8KDSjUERwPS/VdNbImFqHV8GmvYva8EbR11WYYw O0DJzoCgJ6DsX7noHfPRE32J222fc/VQ+AyglCxuwP69amU+LA8EXlTJ5T6d9MSJIYHcpUib9 tqQd9eM2O4nLE6Ta5+gs6nNXO4nhmMSfqNCDDDPcBw1Ek48xB7M6nchbp2xYo51YWngxtQyMI NVpkxo7e4Ko/iOkIaNpvmk/s72hh1VG2VGTDrz+pkU5Ta8hTCpw4oXBaqONmiKsZp2cD+Tv8K uiY57SDoOjrTx0+HEhTUlC6rXf/llZLfb44OY9tci6Ia7hc0qsUEeJaiBU+WsTGrJAjK4=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/IfFe04gwkbS5Jl6vNIKCWFKKFEI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021
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, 20 Mar 2021 23:54:25 -0000

Hi Gorry,

I am puzzled, what has changed in regards to the documented short comings of L4S core technologies the dual queue coupled AQM and TCP Prague in respect to what is claimed in the internet drafts that would justify for the drafts to proceed in the process to gain experimental RFC status?

A quick look at https://camo.githubusercontent.com/0ca81a2fabe48e8fce0f98f8b8347c79d27340684fe0791a3ee6685cf4cdb02e/687474703a2f2f7363652e646e736d67722e6e65742f726573756c74732f6c34732d323032302d31312d3131543132303030302d66696e616c2f73312d6368617274732f727474666169725f63635f71646973635f31306d735f3136306d732e737667
should help refresh the memory how dualQ and TCP Prague fare in comparison with the status quo in the internet, a dumb FIFO in regards to equitable sharing*.
Giving dualQ's main reason to exist is to equitably share between the new L4S LL-queue and what is called the classic-queue, this failure alone should IMHO disqualify L4S from any further discussion/progress in the WG to give team L4S the time and incentive to fix this. But alas, not my call to make so all I can do is remind everybody that these short-coming/failures are no secret and nobody should be surprised if L4S in the real internet under-deliver in its (over-)promises. 	Unless somebody can explain why this failure easily testable in the lab will not materialize in the real internet?


Best Regards
	Sebastian




> On Mar 20, 2021, at 09:13, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 19/03/2021 14:39, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I think this working group has far too much on its plate, and too many
>> unresolved issues elsewhere to adopt further work on this subject.
>> 
> <snip>
> 
> If people on the list plan to read and review draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops, they should say so on this list before the end of the adoption call period.
> 
> Completing the adoption call is considered by the Chairs as an important step towards completing the following work items:
> 
>     Oct 2021     Submit "Identifying Modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
> 
>     Semantics for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay" as an Experimental RFC
> 
>     draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
> 
>     Oct 2021     Submit "DualQ Coupled AQM for Low Latency, Low Loss and
> 
>     Scalable Throughput" as an Experimental RFC
> 
>     draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled
> 
>     Oct 2021     Submit "Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S)
> 
>     Internet Service: Architecture" as an Informational RFC
> 
>     draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch
> 
> Please respond by 24th March 2021,
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Gorry, David and Wes
> 
> tsvwg co-chairs.
>