IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.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 4D1773A0DE1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 7CiFjobtHVQ2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 13E9C3A0DDE for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u15so16396588ljd.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qieoYZqXkIXHM3SoSNLaxVwsBfndbVsmyIKRg/UVuxw=; b=eT8st23CpjaDbKZj31+aENqJ2PEcrJuOR4V9C8UM4YLdDlRhxA4/at7HgE9YOfEMvM bVD73otRq8ea6uIGj9Ugq0JLAt3Zv4wBa6iim18dYCINde/+cm19YbC8uDNZOaMRTTbG vfqwdLUyDXPqw5FIKHupyZt222xKizbmwyus8HHuMuZNSKg7B0S9MTweLxQ5WsGRtVvS uwf/MIe5Y8vI+YBfJJ3R2puVNFVVLuKlF1r9XIKg5U0kVOt5GU5CdAYhVHuqCQ83Mv9n LfMEbEIK5YH6OdTebuotsAwl49JXw+C3f8hofwSDkScggxwgzz3z+tZ8cN6rtLB/CKZd W8iQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qieoYZqXkIXHM3SoSNLaxVwsBfndbVsmyIKRg/UVuxw=; b=oHMiQ37eVzBp3AmVw7bW3QWp4COJUyFIavGu0gKu7xJGDegKGGpymHsQTbhjfiHcqd Ppxa2wBldR8awCkJqJ4g0KZY9IeesOYUN7uPezMZWuWqJHb8QSazE3DcdQ0c5r+7VyT6 W3tzf/k+ewZqHBl6YcNvLjts6vdCzt0MWQLhKlRN7xZ+iPdcKbYYFfFRO4sm0Qc+yW/j kngCJZ45jN9cNfaqFccG0vxG2Z2DrKaFMwaSVg1Rg7QMsIBISl8vEWVM2R3zeSc56YJ9 eX022xbBanRZ82ihvLPWiO02+rj5NWb17TMjQHggDEi9Sw6Gax6rhHGDgeuSKlxjAf3J XvOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tCZUKim/oAa6hW/2Fnfo92FgIEuxnrDX7F9s0XDt9UWKSU1JQ rHeEN9tFa+7ftYNThjnjJfjlHa2abBD23rznbdzKLSAv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwFKkfu0GNC1pYFKajBYGRQc3qicPcBLKtOuKpP/Ey3Y65zCFLFDkEWxZJjl4e5QAXAGz2JQA2ziAuO9vkTSWQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:402:: with SMTP id 2mr16062525lja.192.1589350467300; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDcd=RvvGUDHmwD1-p6UXbd=ASx22fcJduR9kgf+ANYUVoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000006f3b605a5817eb9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/K072vECNCh0Zq3vsgeuPZGKodmo>
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 06:14:31 -0000

I support option 1: using ECT(1) as an input signal.

(I've explained my position during the interim so not doing it again. I'm
happy to do it over email if the chairs need it.)

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:15 AM 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
> <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
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU>] for context on this
> question. 1. 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. 2. 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.
> 3. 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