Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Wed, 20 November 2019 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
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 A093B12008D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 rk9bN1Q_OB45 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 BDFBF120098 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1574280183; bh=glov9zAfIfIT1fCOxsWN7rsu+xZWS42ccEPJUTQmgP0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=MTM1gsMq5kK9FeClRbFvdq4r8zu7AryEZGXt6p+EYFI3e2PY1vcv2FikNSxhVXCcg 0LFByANz3oO1zRwqA9tGC1N/3ntNYbV1vMMCeZEKfwC0RYDlNl9zl9PJoXgFQsnYX4 uIgw3QCpUArhFYiecXyb14ikfRB2UoAxY16olVp4=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [172.20.8.66] ([203.127.152.4]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N8obG-1hkWMD1Big-015rI2; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:03:03 +0100
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <HE1PR07MB44250F3C4E6A744DDCC3DAFCC24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <ad7b763e-b3dd-36cf-a9c5-7de99476babb@mti-systems.com> <12ED7632-5E3E-4EB9-B65E-8A8324067C9A@akamai.com> <5DD4BB25.3060700@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5658232C-07D5-4C89-B16A-58A928332FC6@gmx.de> <HE1PR07MB4425D989D4A266C73331FFA5C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAJU8_nUK5cZLFE-0UBzf0a7T0hC7C+CpCsUy_+ZU_p4oxW9BmQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB442560D0715BC921AB9B7FE3C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Message-ID: <a0263ff2-4e29-65fe-cd16-afadedefc62c@gmx.at>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 04:03:04 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB442560D0715BC921AB9B7FE3C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:thCcChoqnr1LbmKxuH9/eSy5YdkjPUbMtFpjw+8yKs0ReHYgllv tx5YXcUiQVAP5xV8bt2ClIgVJ7dwI7JEGkyxhN6/N0ltgqd/RYLBbc88yXnJbr6htyU0X1/ 8cNYpMRelC8R/lTTCRw7lhYIUruvtYlMJWSXMT1+rC1MyiWXXNGCS+MmAeIXF+xC17E1i25 PFu0R3/kLUGJHmf/J8VdA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:4/fbIwbjPYs=:jWS4yziRfOdXI6dYo+PK2v sDiBPJ20UNgU5JCkyTlxSCMnBNJZfMam13yIGDigNtiUPXtLnMprLEYnZW/wQwbaCDf5RsVEW yzIsfsgy7jPpBtYloRsYcJLJoRxOl9NOCh9ld7A52VsXzwHiH1YzqYHAvNpoy/g2VgBob/G1F za65I14QxoPOCcrk+XpN85Cup258Nms0q5DMF7/3PWfgrNZ3qPOOwEwbxulgeArRuU9O4qpkN HMRzJdKUw7ODlqtl3nEcGaroip3LKst7QWsZZSfMXnTs/uh0AWSaaeb0Jt/Rx8IGCBcaTGKp1 mAK0rQVd33+FZWKvcvlLYyh6AsDqQ2UFUqivMQXXPxZFrLcf4xlFTNZ+Ep85aspPu9496fuWM MVMB8M5noi/iHC48xEIISg9r3HcDdqlCu1y3lPYVebLpaBWMogysBZ7ApVNnRf86xmFVxSkLt wBfIi3LKx5yNShUXL941LkYEyuTGSc48l+mWzahjAoMriiaSD2eZiMLMP0hSumGOsGYv7CIjr +D3QM0thLogckRPw3Y2RgW/2QNPZ3KeCekLs2BqYru7GAIvB+6AC/N7J7gloNcrkjjxAK0Cfx uzMJjlWJCJTRjaP8v3bopqezAKmG+y7eqJ+VsQgeBcN6z069I5tELGgDc3ooeD+8pNNQDy8oi wGsmqITbOgGPsUT0wAlaD/eipnGjqmFg7awI2f7z2ewF6nNDS0aU8+ZRJlcsMm7LMbprD1JMS ZEGwoPAO5I2U81PJlwZaM2Ugx/92P3wG99a0x7CUYLnL4RxhQHK44US0TRaHFmnbtB0ujuf3o lIZ9vTz22B1v+F2ue+zOw6DzPRFr0fT/U2WNwQ1WLZ6lq4CyFkDYc5eDonTb7CQnELKUhk68N +bIkZ/q7yzipLzgaK9gplIGEe+nDLzmYs5JoGtsM0LSGH34bAJ1HflTywod+OnzuJMjOnavDh uFVNd5HCG5QX2fev217E0Rqn1Jrn0H8+E4kHGXc+YJ1cxj7/zS8z35bfi4j5DjqGC2JtIyJCM xtIYZ9jpR6Z12TrMrtOO/X9BOxuu4DTcNpAMzxfinFDXt8wLbPJ55RtiSQabczK8pGNiVIbxh 4/jjkNAl/o93wjR5hKbYePi+UIp8gujK6svJfN2gv3OSZ6QgBLL2jWiQHwm6qT+dT1HklBldR awNpjsjRtziwMQUc0oCQrfMxKpVEU/G5pWk5FNWeYcLF8jhV8ueSwJJ4+uR1GDnw3xQbTJhot CKRDf8vQfewLZAqsZlYOGbC5nLEvV+H6acLHC2g==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/RAaXqpqddLmJ0oPjDgikI9EXZic>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:03:15 -0000

Just to give another example, but with more manageable scope:

Remember that both DCTCP and DCQCN (RoCEv2 as spec'ed by the IBTA)
effectively use parts of the L4S framework already in their enclaves.

Isolating such domains where L4S is found to be useful even after an
internet-wide experiment fails is obviously also a realistic option.

Richard

Am 20.11.2019 um 11:49 schrieb Ingemar Johansson S:
> Hi
>
> So given the imagined outcome that L4S fails.. two scenarios
>
> If other SDOs or developers don’t pick up L4S then things are quite
> simple I guess, just declare the L4S drafts as deprecated, or is there
> more to do ?
>
> But, if e.g. 3GPP somehow thinks that this is a good idea and adopts
> it.. Will the IETF send a message (LS?) to 3GPP with the message “please
> stop using L4S”, is this even a reasonable scenario?. After all, the
> fact that it is picked up by other SDOs, speaks against a failure ?
>
> /Ingemar