Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

[Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, November 18, 2019, Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've followed the different discussions on the list on this topic and,
> IMHO,
> it would be highly desirable to let the SCE proposal move forward in the
> WG.
>
> The effects of the coexistence of different classes of applications in the
> same traffic mix
> seem not explored very well so far, and answers based on DSCP or coupled
> queueing systems
> with non predictable performance raised even more questions and worries.
>
> Traffic isolation is an important topic in this whole discussion and I
> noticed
> different proposals have been recently proposed with announced running
> code for testing such
> as
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-queueing-01
>
> It would make sense to know more about the different solutions in terms of
> isolation
> and see if they can provide predictable performance and at which
> implementation
> and operational cost.
> Nonetheless, it would be important to also know what happens when
> isolation is not in place.
>
> IMHO, It would be difficult to understand why the WG would refuse fresh
> energies
> coming from people willing to do actual work on the topic.
>

I'm also in favour of adoption. I'm also willing to review.

>
> I'm not doing any work on SCE but I'd be ready to spend some time to
> review results and documents,
> if that helps.
>
> Regards
> Luca
> :wq
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:50 PM Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello tsvwg list members,
>>
>> It is our intent to ask for adoption by the TSVWG of
>> draft-morton-tsvwg-sce (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
>> draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-01) during the IETF/106 Singapore TSVWG session.
>>
>>
>> The TSVWG chairs have provided the following guidelines for this adoption
>> request:
>>
>> (1) The WG chairs want to see interest in SCE technology beyond the draft
>> authors in order to adopt the SCE draft.   This will include surveying the
>> room in Singapore (e.g., who has read this
>>  draft?).
>>
>> (2) Coexistence of the L4S and SCE experiments is a concern that will
>> need to be addressed by the WG if the SCE draft is adopted, and hence is in
>> scope for discussion of this adoption request
>> ...  In particular, absence of a coexistence plan (e.g., to deal with the
>> different uses of the ECT(1) codepoint by L4S and SCE) is not an automatic
>> barrier to WG adoption of the SCE draft.
>>
>> (3) The TCPM WG chairs have indicated TCPM WG willingness to consider
>> complementary TCP work needed to complete SCE functionality.  In
>> particular, draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce is likely to be inc
>> luded in the TCPM Singapore agenda for Friday morning.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Rod Grimes
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>