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

David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com> Thu, 14 May 2020 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <david.pullen@broadcom.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 2AF023A0C4D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.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 2Nix7KlLXBy2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (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 9F4243A0C2D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id m11so1749951qka.4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dSIw2B6UjSziyiwfTIZ9fZ0M2t9JwSi04Cfthz3QIWs=; b=Awn9unQw+Z4yMIZS3JXZT84cg0BwxdX3/d8muHEET+9MruYR6pxud8wcvzdW9EJhyM nPoTvSZ5bOePrTNgcGeS3xqMLgJ5B4s/PF1T9M/YW6YaGIyUPa1ih4MT91qga7NwHM28 FiRUCYUPBIMI6Pf7SPj3i02vbg7/PxmEOuo3s=
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=dSIw2B6UjSziyiwfTIZ9fZ0M2t9JwSi04Cfthz3QIWs=; b=qKItT4I45+yqKhXkBoEtUnGwdcm5/ZaG3i6ybA3+CozJ2L74PN85pIPNrah/Dqeqpc a94aZS+IErvPqNzEniuZIeFqg3ymfO/bk4aL952bo6lDNmL2nh0JYdexgt8/EmL70C3r P0Jqccg/NCv4hVYYwE81FaJGCGCvNt3W/Y2mMojZhJEmKK74+DCNaT+lJk+BN8R1ngT/ HurI/5jYxkFde1oBc6fq/ClY/BzwpgNBaf4FfUkodKJzjrvaSsVr3EL/Hs5BYEQnlJHz IpkIQIb7xUyqEUbF+GHcGcnLXB3LZ4YgLHy3j0EUs6WjqHPTlfQ3Ekcx1MiAI58qd+G6 yiPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531S0lXmMDlLW2BpbVAI0RqHfdqIdCHflmzBTIdRGcGEaatk0xb+ AEGDADhzSaQE9nqNsDPOj5lFubVCD2sLi+T6uwAmSw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzd+ce6Z8NLuIgRirJrc43hgst1ZLn27D1XqbsGTCpF3uNw5ZUmP4eMQCtpEAzbIopzfG8OrwJoZhFvce/fink=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6dc4:: with SMTP id i187mr5966982qkc.358.1589475766514; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:02:46 -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: David Pullen <david.pullen@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 13:01:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA+foQV8K0oL7Booa+JnwVi86drmBDR08K-MziTR4yD4-KhdJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007189c805a59eaab0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/LOhwHY547v6K5pEV4jnaa3lb5IU>
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: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:02:57 -0000

I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network.

Thanks,
  - Dave

David Pullen
Distinguished Engineer  |  Wired Networking, Cable Modems
Broadcom

office: 678.475.3143  |  mobile: 678.477.4108  |  fax: 770.232.0211
4385 River Green Parkway  |  Duluth, GA 30096
david.pullen@broadcom.com   |   broadcom.com



On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:15 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
> <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. *
>
>