IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 B973112020A; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 qBjPAANG5K4G; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 7772512022E; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 56DFC474F1C52313D570; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:27:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:27:51 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.127]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:27:45 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <in@bobbriscoe.net>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>
CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce
Thread-Index: AQHVnZ8F1BXU+FYPXkqdJ6NHHfZmkqeQEalQ
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:27:44 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23DC49BC@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <201911141350.xAEDo99J048928@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <39d0435d-e22b-7b4b-bba7-3988a67aba76@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <39d0435d-e22b-7b4b-bba7-3988a67aba76@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.52.39.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/SnU1SoQZX7zuoCig2eGo5wwJk6A>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-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: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:27:59 -0000

> 
> tsvwg Chairs,
> 
> 
> On 14/11/2019 21:50, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > The TSVWG chairs have provided the following guidelines for this adoption
> request:
> [snip]
> > (2) Coexistence of the L4S and SCE experiments is a concern that will
> > need to be addressed by the WG if the SCE draft is adopted, and hence is in
> scope for discussion of this adoption request ..  In particular, absence of a
> coexistence plan (e.g., to deal with the different uses of the ECT(1)
> codepoint by L4S and SCE) is not an automatic barrier to WG adoption of the
> SCE draft.
> Could the chairs give clarity on whether Rod's statement above came from
> the them please? And if it did, what the chairs thinking was in saying that. It
> seems rather an odd thing for chairs of an IETF WG to say about a codepoint
> in the IP header, when the prime role of the IETF is interoperability and
> coexistence.
[Roni] My reading of the text was that while LS4 was adopted by the WG the usage of ECT(1) by LS4 should not be the reason for not adopting SCE. The decision should be on the merit of the SCE. The usage of ECT(1) is a separate issue

> 
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> ______
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email