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

Asad Sajjad Ahmed <asadsa@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 12 May 2020 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <me@asadsa.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 3EC6F3A0DE6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 2cawf7sZEgeh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MTA-06-4.privateemail.com (mta-06-4.privateemail.com [198.54.122.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BED9A3A0DE0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MTA-06.privateemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MTA-06.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EDA60049 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.20.151.217]) by MTA-06.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 794E06003D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2020 00:32:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 02:32:42 +0200
From: Asad Sajjad Ahmed <asadsa@ifi.uio.no>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200512003242.oodorrm3n33pxub5@lenovo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/N_jTeBA76hu7bbD8q8NAKf4pFdE>
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: Tue, 12 May 2020 00:45:33 -0000

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

Asad

> On May 4, 2020, at 11:15, 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 <mailto: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.
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 
> 
>