Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps

Sebastian Moeller <> Mon, 22 March 2021 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C37E3A1026 for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 03:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.252
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4foCOC-SratG for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 03:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6387B3A1025 for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 03:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1616409074; bh=dUQX2EPv6pgkFGP3MEJGccBfyht8OlFcX7KdkCgCyLI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=KksHanlwxfCjtTFADW9BbwzKTw/KwQ0oRcp9BB4BWWnt+KBuPQZKJQD8QxDi4Gn6r vEGEnNYH4m1HEYlBXNU+pHjwmh1XTYMNkKRdlJxpvV8ih3qHmOxAyFWf/475OJaFtp LXILh/8ZG6tPWOWHQAda60qt0d66HBmUk+BlbuWU=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx104 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1McpJq-1lyAoy1Wrq-00a0YU; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:31:14 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:31:12 +0100
Cc: Bob Briscoe <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:exKzRxUuku3x4L9L887WEFsGjN1J1gv7dEuOJlWjoWcc3mwlmGk IslgpaCdyxwbqkox1RLlXb96GASJJJbs/w6uMbSfNFF/V+1E2YFd1MiD/JUpVXFoqOahzRD aEz7S6rTjqkhD+TscGJOS8iFpccAfm1Oew+nGo40uYpZOdVBxwirTtjhBa5LDVAccCnPoyK r2x5DX021Q6h3f5q2A5KA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:m+2YWOVxK4g=:P0KtNHWLthd9E9fTEBXnw/ bBma5BKJfJ6QIJ5uirCe0qvr/b4EqYdlVVXRNWHctMKsNmV7zHuNNq9fPyngTlEq3Syw6F0R3 bDzJw6XTjg8rtYdfgClLPhSZJndRSSmNsmIQHkxjKx1vNKF6BFxK1vmOPC7uABaehgUm8ffXK lO5NDqXEg9mBYPfyqhWv85X5IM206ZVKcpLkec8lrcRorP2g3HLxp41BKHoJhqB5KBs/xDOdA ryFok/V4wZd8Zqwf/DLwv+gyoozrFhue0n0yxHQrodR+jdVSNp+u/QiREVWvLaGyMYrffIUN5 1dbLiX8oRIG0K7WmTFOMfGfbyrllWvqr9yd3OfqLe3go37Jod77GodkrYOKdjAtqO7c9fS/a6 A+bhaFAz4uS1SrctuzNX1KhfwtwZ4g44K8VtzpB50bM9A1eJWpKUHVHBDnpqfvveuAZyFy6Nj 3cWmDGwyAeJX6KPNdeLBLMt9D8iTNtZz1oga9O3Nt8iY+imEhOEvNKZrHLGtOBmMild3GcVAg 3tMJ5CyaWNxFSmu3iIEmycJA7n8fH+/GLE2Lth6d5Dpfnkays9QzMH1LevgcMRMhK+ZWY1sBy 6DbSbb+KSattgu2MHD4QRLEN2Y24Er7ROihpccP1aXYXvg0FOx1jtHTwp5eh+PHHlPRc0jOdB JCX30xUzt81RqMx90QXqG+Wa9gnSJ5msxtV5mW6752SM43jIwpI3bSlWs9vkISYoDPjsW+Tzr /HmX9yUwR5L3o8jeQOBGup/kxtmoCQnO0oobS0k+EXR+FlTxe3BEPuFXvDVx/8DwlOV0TSk0+ TfjxG4kRkKqYwOFrx6XvfH0mD96hlOJaNZzCPBs3OgsVgMKBT+2ycoSGQQekFal75oKJfuRuw G6NoavyKa7ta8E052UMw==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:32:08 -0000

Hi Jason,

given your deep involvement with an ISP that seems interested in deploying L4S, have you actually performed any tests in your network that could help assess L4S fitness for purpose? That is have you done any tests looking at how safe and how functional L4S is actually in a real network? While I do not hope for posting of internal data, it would be great if you could confirm whether your assessment of L4S fitness is based on data outside of data presented by the L4S proponents or critics in this thread and/or IETF meeting presentations?
I	t is well possible that I simply have not seen the data yet, that convincingly demonstrated L4S robustly and reliably delivering on its promises, but that is something I am happy to remedy, if such data exists.

Best Regards

P.S.: Not a new question and not a question restricted to Jason. Anybody with independent data showing L4S achieving its promises (or failing to do so) please at least let the list know that you have seen such data.

> On Mar 20, 2021, at 15:33, Livingood, Jason <> wrote:
>> i believe nobody is asking for rocks (nor shrubberies) here, this is really about a convincing demonstration that the whole L4S design, consisting of network and protocol bits actually behaves like a coherent design and not two disjoint sub-projects that will never really harmonize?
> Maybe I am being too simplistic with my operator mindset, but I'd prefer that any long-term decision be data-driven. And to collect significant data you need to conduct an experiment. Which in turn seems to potentially depend on an experimental RFC. So if we want the convincing demonstration sought & real data to drive a long-term decision then how is an experimental RFC not the logical next step?
> Jason