Re: [tsvwg] L4S DSCP (was: L4S drafts: Next Steps)

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 19:01 +0000, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:

> [IJ] Collected answer to all the above. All I see is that this
> RFC3168 AQM is brought up repeatedly, when prompted about the
> possibility that even RFC3168 AQMs can be updated (the obvious first
> step is to make these follow 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xml ) ,
> it is only met with all kinds of arguments like we don't do this
> until L4S is deemed safe for deployment and we wont allow the
> experiment to happen until [TSVWG formally says whatever...], this is
> probably as close to a catch 22 situation that you can get in IETF. 
> This is to me just smokes and mirrors with FUD as a main ingredient
> and it is getting harder and harder to keep  a serious discussion.

Operators deploying RFC 3168 ECN AQMs have absolutely no incentive to
disable or upgrade anything unless and until the IETF moves RFC 3168 to
historic and (potentially) replaces it (at PS level) with something
else. For the moment neither step is on the table. That's the catch-22.

And it is disingenuous to claim that anyone is trying to prevent the
L4S experiment from happening. People have been patiently trying to
explain how it can be conducted in a way that doesn't negatively impact
non-participants.


Regards,

// Steve