Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 12 March 2020 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 03ECA3A12EF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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
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 bZXEip-4nApu for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs20.mail.saunalahti.fi (vs20.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.117.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF6F3A12EC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs20.mail.saunalahti.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vs20.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7E12048E; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:18:59 +0200 (EET)
Received: from gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.115]) by vs20.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C9020899; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:18:59 +0200 (EET)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eggert@elisanet.fi) by gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C288540006; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:18:57 +0200 (EET)
Received: from stickers.eggert.org (stickers.eggert.org [172.24.110.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D29164FDAE; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:18:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <2CC63847-707F-4B50-8F44-CFC6CD22F9B0@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A24E6BA-0C28-4755-B5CF-9C7BCA65446F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:18:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: <6f051485-30d7-b025-8dc4-1ca97694e29c@mti-systems.com>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
References: <7409b3a3-ba14-eb6d-154b-97c9d2da707b@bobbriscoe.net> <fe1b3c14f94d1fdd46b99d4fb057d093525310f0.camel@petri-meat.com> <0206bfc0-2c1b-64af-9fc4-ecb38e83be45@bobbriscoe.net> <E3D0E6F7-E7C2-4E7A-8283-283A447DBD29@gmx.de> <6f051485-30d7-b025-8dc4-1ca97694e29c@mti-systems.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 1D29164FDAE.A5ACB
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/TBi2zA6htRu6WtBdrcfj-C7CCyo>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:19:06 -0000

Hi,

On 2020-3-11, at 17:50, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> There are 3 chairs, and I only speak for 1, but the bottom-line is simply "WG rough consensus" (decently described in RFC 7282).

I wonder (1) what the current status is and (2) if it can be summarized in the way to let me decide if I personally have an opinion.

I'm at least somewhat clueful about ECN and queuing, and I actually care about the topic (I want QUIC to work well in the presence of this, ideally taking advantage of it).

However, I have long ago given up on following the torrent of emails on this topic. There seem to be two camps that each believe they have a superior solution, fighting themselves to death over the details. More detail and more argumentation is unlikely to get me to a point where I feel comfortable on doing a hum.

I'd much rather see some short answers on some basic questions, such as:

Is the solution incrementally deployable?
Is it simple?
Does it offer better performance, to participating and ideally non-participating flows?
Is it at worst a no-op, or can it degrade performance for non-participating flows?
Can a partially deployed solution be rolled back?
Can it stay deployed but become a no-op if a different mechanism wins out in the end?
etc.

Because without some basic information along these lines, I fear I'd at the moment hum to not do anything, and that feels like we'd waste an opportunity.

Lars