Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Wes,

Pls see the dictionary definitions of classic (as just posted in a 
response to Sebastian), which are all about superlative and enduring 
quality. I really don't think we will find a better word.


I'm afraid what is 'normal' changes over time, which is to be avoided 
for an RFC. We deliberately chose 'Classic' because it had a sense of 
"The stuff that has stood the test of time up to publication of this RFC".

If we use 'Normal' for the Reno-friendly service, it will always imply 
that L4S is not normal, even if L4S becomes normal (which is usually the 
intent of the IETF publishing an RFC).

I have no desire to use a word that means 'inferior to L4S'. But I'm not 
happy to use a word that implies that L4S is abnormal. Sorry to make 
resolution of this one difficult (and BTW, thanks go to Michael Scharf 
for being clear on what he can compromise on).


PS. I would like to hear whether anyone who has been either neutral or 
supportive of L4S perceives anything negative in the word 'Classic'. I 
suspect they have tuned out of this thread.




Bob

On 06/11/2019 19:54, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On 11/6/2019 1:57 PM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> From draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-08: “It gives an incremental 
>> migration path so that existing 'Classic' TCP traffic will be no 
>> worse off”
>>
>> You are proposing an experiment. Not more than that. I will be fine 
>> with the term “Classic” for TCP and TCPM-specified congestion control 
>> when more than 50% of Internet traffic uses that new technology.
>>
>> Until this happens, I insist that the word “Classic” must be removed 
>> in all context of TCP and congestion control (as far as it is owned 
>> by TCPM), including the reference above. BTW, “normal” as suggested 
>> would also work for me. So, you have plenty of options for other terms.
>>
>
> If Dave+Michael's suggestion of replacing "classic" with "normal" is 
> agreable to others, this seems like a good way forward to me.  It 
> should be easy enough to explain in other SDOs that classic and normal 
> mean the same thing, if this is a real issue.
>
> (FWIW, I've never had a problem myself with "classic", nor read any 
> negative connotations to it.  However, for the sake of working group 
> progress, I think we just need to pick something that seems the least 
> terrible and agree to move on.)
>
>

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