IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Wed, 13 May 2020 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.net>
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 0D65F3A1069 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=heistp.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 bg4I6gLKhIdO for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (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 2C5753A1066 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id d207so8714605wmd.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rI1v0aWsRW8JndMmKrtlZ/ynDUbPEB7i8S+VJgY5vos=; b=eIZ/ZX6LWD22CZSZl/8n2JdsD6W9flgolQOUoJ0tyoXjaVAop3yZi8ygZYpRzF8+iY n/AIaj8Fd5y8f8HGxszZze+Z84s/7+Fq9jZ8+Vl3el6wBrojipGUwlFygkYe7eGXmanG id5JvqlPuLec57tqhsOgK5MhHUNM/fBrHCplyp1rzyoYC0/f2L+857v6tJcrxliIzkUr ahxthPxJDtWSSdXVP1wbXSXjIj4o2Oinx1F1hUL99l9ACnf6topIZQbukCzkJUYet4j1 7b8pZCDZ8W5cTkn8jYS/QGRSxiPqXvfv9QPzQFORbt3PymaCXcFXFZqO7S5hsN/9WQxR Zcnw==
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=rI1v0aWsRW8JndMmKrtlZ/ynDUbPEB7i8S+VJgY5vos=; b=fg/JDdyRUa12wruBTUy/LCBohUY9oCyPLk16P//VCxTn7hfaix/G7yBavUVi+CZUse HFqQ7UnKSamt9ldiE/j4GwnnESLgp93w/aFo955p+h71OA+TxB7IhxLuc2xlZQqqKDbM T67yZybgvCi7FLh51EXrOG2t1wzMyyMMoKOAb5205EXiXO3DX13gWED66NvQd3GYVgSu KVCFu1yNqDj/uLqQASAAdNBdzud7FBrWAxUFiLihFhojqSbddENs4NwN+CBR/zI/jhET p4rwkBBecLXfvgR8VvkGtuK1Cg3qOfIXMwFbslKY1hC/DSHbubH1efs4xyiZctWIVOn+ FMCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYSdEVvl3u4UkT2KKdonol9EwXXHq0vRcDIh/kLtjpUKM+vTuCZ HeZ4KAPVZCcu15yDwH0Upk6duZ5IVGc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypI5gggp3B6NkR4iBZjw6Y0Dym/oBUbPJn2QB/y3xhw9pgJiu1ODeaKzlgEOp7b2OUu0kKHAiw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7513:: with SMTP id o19mr30550572wmc.104.1589370112538; Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.72.0.64] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w15sm26002373wrl.73.2020.05.13.04.41.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 May 2020 04:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:41:50 +0200
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E32D661C-CE85-461B-B638-AABAB1D295BF@heistp.net>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/JR3hTlzxpLZ14_4DoGt_kBsh1EA>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 11:41:56 -0000

I support option 2: using ECT(1) as an output signal, and will provide justification in a separate thread.

> On May 4, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org). 
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this question.
> 
> 	• I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.
> 	• I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
> 	• There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email