Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Tue, 09 March 2021 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 552693A1B0A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:42:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.332 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
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 vsfUwaW9MEgk for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk (mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk [185.185.84.51]) (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 9137D3A1B06 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:42:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=BVCHR2l8LYBsyUrwhjSPx7AASYOHEBEoO44RUHDNtps=; b=MqDkRqIORLmd3RF47EHiG3E4C JPH6DFV+aNfcaowX44mB2Qo2elnHsa6KrNv4O7IRG/iQkm4yKe3I55AzP5jrq496dyDTZiFH2ALFU K1lbwjmHdszcPaFy9NFBm4pH03OHwxRVysPoenkON6+cPjdGEqv51neoO8zUr1wmfLaZ7stIs94LA x+rX7yzCOeTVt96Zil2nZFbfRas0HQ0W6OCLcOCVRSdUMDIP5+ZTIbYGWeqsLYzN2ELMW0QI7kmuz rye1RzrhYomcntQsdKkFP4N8f2xzvKQz0AsVSd4nras0HRRK8Cc6WP4gS9U6y9PSUIi+ksKE2remv PeSWDxDTQ==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:38006 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1lJQSM-0004VF-Q3; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:42:38 +0000
To: "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <AM8PR07MB7476A907FDD0A49ADBD7CA7EB9BD0@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <SN2PR00MB017475FC0E8C13754E531E17B6B69@SN2PR00MB0174.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476FAE559719D241375A816B9B19@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR0701MB22999C8C05ECA3D995FA7FFEC28F9@HE1PR0701MB2299.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476E0EB3FC368D3C69A5466B98F9@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DBBPR07MB7481E1026CDE30D494856F15B9989@DBBPR07MB7481.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB7476FAEF53518DBFE457AC62B9949@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <41a7dd8f-b9b0-512e-60ee-6a496557cdde@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 00:42:38 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB7476FAEF53518DBFE457AC62B9949@AM8PR07MB7476.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------52BF6D9134F4C71657D1179D"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Qwbvu54HH4LZMjMigoppNpdao-A>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
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, 09 Mar 2021 00:42:43 -0000

Koen, tsvwg,

I had updated draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id with the changes to the Prague 
Requirements from the more clear-cut results of this survey.
And I included the changes Ingemar suggested and Asad.

I was going to post it when the servers opened this morning.
But then I also updated it for Tom's comprehensive review over the last 
couple of days.
I've not seen Tom come back on anything.

So I'll post it now, then at least people have a fighting chance of 
reading the diffs if they want to before Wed's WG session.



Bob

On 07/03/2021 00:57, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The details of the consolidated view of all feedback received is 
> available and can be found via following link: 
> https://l4steam.github.io/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_consolidated.pdf 
> <https://l4steam.github.io/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_consolidated.pdf>
>
> The only strong objections were against the “MUST document” 
> requirements, which will be removed from the next version of the 
> draft. Some clarifications were asked and (will be) added.
>
> For 2 requirements a big consensus was that they should be developed 
> and evolved as needed during the experiment.
>
> All other requirements had already implementations and if not, were 
> seen feasible/realizable and were planned to be implemented.
>
> We will present an overview during the meeting.
>
> Regards,
>
> Koen.
>
> *From:* tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * De Schepper, 
> Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:20 PM
> *To:* tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have received several surveys privately, for which I tried to get 
> the approval for sharing those on the overview page: l4steam.github.io 
> | L4S-related experiments and companion website 
> <https://l4steam.github.io/#prague-requirements-compliance>
>
> Thanks to NVIDIA for sharing their view and feedback for their 
> GeforceNow congestion control. Their feedback was added to the above 
> overview about a week ago. As we didn’t get the explicit approval for 
> the others, we will share and present a consolidated view of all 
> feedback received later and during the meeting.
>
> Note: pdf versions are now also available on the above page for easier 
> reading.
>
> Koen.
>
> *From:* tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>> 
> *On Behalf Of *De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> *Sent:* Monday, February 8, 2021 2:37 PM
> *To:* Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>>; tsvwg IETF list 
> <tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>
> Hi Ingemar,
>
> Thanks for your contributions. I linked your doc to the 
> https://l4steam.github.io/#prague-requirements-compliance 
> <https://l4steam.github.io/#prague-requirements-compliance> web page 
> (and will do so for others).
>
> I didn’t see any issues or objections mentioned to the current 
> requirements as specified in the draft. Does this mean you think they 
> are all reasonable, valid and feasible?
>
> Interesting observation (related to the performance optimization topic 
> 1) that for the control packets “RTCP is likely not using ECT(1)”. Why 
> is this not likely? I assume this will impact the performance? Do we 
> need to recommend the use of ECT(1) on RTCP packets in the draft?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Koen.
>
> *From:* Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 8, 2021 10:59 AM
> *To:* De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) 
> <koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com 
> <mailto:koen.de_schepper@nokia-bell-labs.com>>; tsvwg IETF list 
> <tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>>
> *Cc:* Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>>
> *Subject:* RE: Prague requirements survey
>
> Hi
>
> Please find attached (hopefully) a Prague requirements survey applied 
> to SCReAM (RFC8298 std + running code)
>
> Regards
> Ingemar
>
> *From:* tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>> 
> *On Behalf Of *De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> *Sent:* den 6 februari 2021 23:20
> *To:* tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>>
> *Subject:* [tsvwg] Prague requirements survey
>
> Hi all,
>
> To get a better understanding on the level of consensus on the Prague 
> requirements, we prepared an overview document listing the L4S-ID 
> draft requirements specific to the CC (wider Prague requirements), as 
> a questionnaire towards potential CC developers. If you are developing 
> or have developed an L4S congestion control, you can describe the 
> status of your ongoing development in the second last column. If you 
> cannot share status, or plan-to/would implement an L4S CC, you can 
> list what you would want to support (see feasible). In the last column 
> you can put any description/limitations/remarks/explanations related 
> to evaluations, implementations and/or plans (will implement or will 
> not implement). Any expected or experienced issues and any 
> objections/disagreements to the requirement can be explained and 
> colored appropriately.
>
> The document can be found on following link: 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/L4STeam/l4steam.github.io/master/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_template.docx 
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d16bc960-8ef0f066-d16b89fb-86ee86bd5107-080c65bfd839440d&q=1&e=7dbb7494-67c3-4315-88a6-325f32e4e8b1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent.com%2FL4STeam%2Fl4steam.github.io%2Fmaster%2FPragueReqs%2FPrague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_template.docx>
>
> As an example I filled it for the Linux TCP-Prague implementation on 
> following link: 
> https://l4steam.github.io/PragueReqs/Prague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_Linux_TCP-Prague.docx 
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f839c5f7-a7a2fcf1-f839856c-86ee86bd5107-29dabadc5d0e673d&q=1&e=7dbb7494-67c3-4315-88a6-325f32e4e8b1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fl4steam.github.io%2FPragueReqs%2FPrague_requirements_Compliance_and_Objections_Linux_TCP-Prague.docx>
>
> Please send your filled document to the list (Not sure if an 
> attachment will work, so I assume you also need to store it somewhere 
> and send a link to it, or send to me directly).
>
> We hope to collect many answers, understanding the position of the 
> different (potential) implementers and come faster to consensus.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Koen.
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/