IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Wed, 30 September 2020 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
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 D8B633A00DB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telekom.de
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 txh50usP126c for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout11.telekom.de (mailout11.telekom.de [194.25.225.207]) (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 28BED3A00E5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telekom.de; i=@telekom.de; q=dns/txt; s=dtag1; t=1601457374; x=1632993374; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=L1q7mDE8PVBKZbyqhpMLQWDHrAYokfmqwr9hL5GZaAo=; b=E9H7+uF5ZEWhHgtiXbgXWGrVbEceh717N0bNaLlgkXS9aNB5vxtkdhBV skhfIftkXzBF0IiyR5phfVUMpZHpbIGznCKLNOwXk7SeUdMXhYzVao5w4 8hnGySKnRjZN0PNWwPVh1uGH6t5i4vfCTxG7lIWdMwkDnwEy+oYQQKYft eHKvI0oMYGAxbtFC6MmBd9m4YByrDOMuRf+uLDbrZ/eFoddrEk1loMIQa caC2zcJEgq3TRvfM1or7NJrzQYr3DWoFpVgh/CguYat+tahz7GdamUEYS sCHlAGz3fZjDECJ0Z5i0DboU25FtVgmM61Qnt24mdYTN1AhWfralHreJn A==;
X-Mailbb-Crypt: true
Received: from qdefcs.de.t-internal.com ([10.171.254.41]) by MAILOUT11.dmznet.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256; 30 Sep 2020 11:16:11 +0200
IronPort-SDR: WF72ZsEjnDeETX4E0nWyNH61N9srzs9bmTVfQDA6411k471YuaAu28pxmikmxEo8MsvQRFGyXX ilBmoH5YjTKg==
X-Mailbb-Crypt: true
Received: from he102090.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (HELO he102090) ([10.162.178.105]) by QDEFCS.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 30 Sep 2020 11:16:11 +0200
Received: from QDEZC2.de.t-internal.com ([10.171.255.37]) by he102090 (Totemo SMTP Server) with SMTP ID 216; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:13:38 +0200 (CEST)
IronPort-SDR: 4LsgFwzh2UdK3UnPJ1maPvMWT9paLhRu869ia2rMUSUhqslj2BGVfAZnbjVmKEWpBDmztRQmOa 0fsjrpp1DvJ9BVuP56gLY2XJm8L8aNqe0=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,322,1596492000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="204201183"
X-Mailbb-Crypt: true
X-Mailbb-SentCrypt: true
X-MGA-submission: MDHMutspL5gqIGH/2Xcn+TA1raf7LXP6Nk+djNLZarSkSEPZeO3yTzWWixQra7bTvVgQCNk/y+KsZZoIDgvpr5HhUjEld+kB29elCcbZcnTsvojylpr20CJMayx1pk2UpYzBWxO310St7bH+HavssKXXP7JF/pngU98/PskRuqAiyw==
Received: from he105867.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.169.119.44]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256; 30 Sep 2020 11:16:10 +0200
Received: from HE105864.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.41) by HE105867.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:16:09 +0200
Received: from HE104163.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.171.40.38) by HE105864.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.169.119.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:16:09 +0200
Received: from GER01-LEJ-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.de (51.5.80.16) by O365mail05.telekom.de (172.30.0.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:16:10 +0200
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QmP32RxygVUV4biKZLe6rKtKax8MzADHJWe2LjCVeAmod3V0gJouloAhsiBp2hDBYlAhoCK6MjuNMqGWEDHq7zGKXSJX35QccouZ9/y3n/X21nqjNrS9AFPTp4KssO5tHkzTQLeOrhVfpklBCTrFcu5ZQ16R9mq8nVbfps4sDzn4UopO8TGhMwqQy+jtCcz0EyGmb+lQ/vZc2D8JGQaphOk928+9jeDkBpW+VY7jlYj+QBL+3dzb6uL7Bnu+7O2N7mNRJmzTfcXbKaSSgmUHABsbxZP9RPNxlVAeEwbJg3phDkgcSwhfclHJ4aM+tkU985i0MdFN40lM1UIDS9zz/w==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PoqoYnZDcLfK7oScTv2OS6qlNGKl2MNrPPSPheb+cFU=; b=WwVBctTxfrDEpYChoD3X/0uY+QX3xwNHu/EkZ1YeYszPfDGe1JROjRl5Bm5gqI6peZzsyUY0D3UPbOHp+tHnSkrV/FKZE/ZXQg+JuvECToZmDrNYn8GQUAc5RujNcMUgYLM94UvZiHAjNObhzEAJOI0EBg3jlqzBS/g+2ZDRjzzxUJYr5+Xdqg/58ME6VOMaE1EZnpDbnhpFXIxEgsXXTmwKCx1hhaMhyJkKuxweghi2uZ2byWJ7ENh9+tnciCCo1zt5E8BFMZR4RflmXBMJ3E33gwyPSgA2eOpJdODtk21Uia3bjSj+OzL+yUeS4B952zvvzQ5RK2xW7CHCATDeWQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=telekom.de; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=telekom.de; dkim=pass header.d=telekom.de; arc=none
Received: from LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (2a01:4180:c012:5::19) by LEJPR01MB0715.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE (2a01:4180:c012:6::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.14; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:16:08 +0000
Received: from LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::f978:6ea4:2b79:cf57]) by LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE ([fe80::f978:6ea4:2b79:cf57%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3433.035; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:16:08 +0000
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org
CC: tsvwg@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29
Thread-Index: AdaXAWEOt98MvIVPT3WTT36ASgnjhAABkrAA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:16:08 +0000
Message-ID: <LEJPR01MB1116D7DFFADC28995CB6965F9C330@LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
References: <HE1PR0701MB2876EE4CE6B71EEFA88A912AC2330@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB2876EE4CE6B71EEFA88A912AC2330@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=telekom.de;
x-originating-ip: [84.136.92.190]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e65a3a67-f9f8-4e15-9f32-08d865217776
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: LEJPR01MB0715:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <LEJPR01MB0715C731BCBE7BC9FCE7C8909C330@LEJPR01MB0715.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:612;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 20pqZ1lTQYV/498yIdXRxZ2Anq6Hwe5mWwEH4XYRz+CxMkGyrUXfMikzqXAwJsaGet6KbwzB14MLDWkmWbINU3vzG4ZCUvbICusRhitzzyS1G0hJqICJaUeE6X+wJMJhlsmSJdiPcT3obkBQ8W4EYPVwyaaEFDj8Kkolp9xHDA8as6a0u6Z06vQTsCElcIzpU4BBhaat7JnvPgOnAZdvb050HGMVrzRH3MRBFLAca08JZcwHpfwDaR7ElaUVTkHpuNC1DAlp1Kho3a5aE+fv3QAqhPqXYiT4xcJAEJ0gwW8ulzwUp8fSdsqQKmzHSHZw1PsF68CSz36v6mudSaXgJu2kOid1Naytmf1W1SoMw/g=
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(83380400001)(26005)(99936003)(15974865002)(2906002)(4326008)(7696005)(9686003)(55016002)(66574015)(5660300002)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(33656002)(76116006)(66616009)(66946007)(478600001)(71200400001)(86362001)(186003)(8676002)(8936002)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01D6971B.0CAFFE60"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: LEJPR01MB1116.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e65a3a67-f9f8-4e15-9f32-08d865217776
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Sep 2020 09:16:08.5054 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bde4dffc-4b60-4cf6-8b04-a5eeb25f5c4f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pddnFOLLzbvv4p8UUWKlyuSVQAdnCF4bCmQG3Q/XTiEsNGBB+H23NevE6fQx54inX0Q+8O6wcabmvNcC4YM4ncCNm/QAk6whj1Hk4QJivQ0=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LEJPR01MB0715
X-TM-SNTS-SMTP: D7D46E88914B1A49E80F3171A328951CFAD23E51AEDEBBF9C441FD4A5B792D362000:8
X-OriginatorOrg: telekom.de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/RFyIfrYzrkwV_-hzhcete4ngZt4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29
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, 30 Sep 2020 09:16:17 -0000

Hi Ingemar,

One observation, I think it is mainly L4S which is discussed very
intensively by this list. My perception is:

- some discuss L4S and available features and try to improve it
- some discuss L4S and require features not available yet (but so far
provide little input in improving L4S)
- and some discuss their expectations on transport protocols using ECN
codepoints and try to help improving the TSVWG specifications discussed
and/or deployed today.

To me, controlled, careful and reasonable experimentation with a following
evaluation looks like a useful approach. That might initially be more of a
"test user" thing, not code released for the wild. A set of different
players may be useful too (e.g., I don't know whether an access router
vendor offers an L4S implementation, and availability of applications or
content expected to benefit from L4S transport certainly would be very
helpful).

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Ingemar Johansson S
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. September 2020 10:35
An: tsvwg@ietf.org
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Ingemar Johansson S
<ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Betreff: Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

Hi

I think that issue #29 can be closed and moved to ICCRG. 

My impression, based on earlier discussions on this mailing list is that
possible RFC3168 bottlenecks such as home gateways can be updated to support
L4S alongside with other necessary updates that are done to block e.g.
security threats. 

In addition, this discussion is a non-issue for 4G/5G access as RFC3168 ECN
is AFAIK not at all implemented or publicly available in 4G/5G. 

Also think that it is reasonable to go for algorithms that can do detection
rather than fall back. This can be documented/referenced to in the L4S ops
draft started by Greg White, that is published later on.

The important thing is that I don’t see any reasons why L4S issue #29 should
block WGLC for the L4S drafts.

What worries me deeply is that this activity tend to get stalled in endless
discussions and deep analysis what people may or may not have said and that
sucks energy from the group. 
Also I notice that SCE is still brought up even though it had very limited
support in the group while L4S has quite large support. Why do we still
discuss SCE here ?. We really need to move forward, now!. 
Therefore I would encourage that the persons who are against L4S instead
spend their time and energy on work to make the L4S drafts advance through
WGLC and contribute to the L4S ops draft.

Regards
/Ingemar
================================
Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc. 
Master Researcher

Ericsson Research
RESEARCHER
GFTL ER NAP NCM Netw Proto & E2E Perf
Labratoriegränd 11
977 53, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com

 Talk about a dream, try to make it real
                  Bruce Springsteen
=================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email