Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Tue, 09 March 2021 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 413603A110A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.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 uNmDueZZHJ6V for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk (mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk [185.185.84.51]) (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 5A80B3A110B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:19:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=16C0WCd0S8nAhbphxN6AY5Cw8oVGVMFXPry88krBgMA=; b=mNEdDoT+oX0Fjw2Ph0oIXEbEA tTx9ssv/eRiQTq2bCb9jayIBNsd2wxtGYQnmjXo4iWanMms7lkcVJnvtfzSliyw52K0/XXv54mpaI IsdyEn1UP1uYoTsD/9aUveMLk/DuYy+yAWz36oH1W6tnvVqWnCmwHsBo10/9sHU2yJn3zrHjvveiY 8rWwOtXULMEyHUdfDI2Ld5CegSSDM9pxLY0IaXrSfdj7+x3HXlP+uff5kyKsLb1PWjEnV7WyaA+DR zzmrp0zeuLj4Z8DDzAmC/n0JUfEpDI9BTFDS1DINKW9SbsmFG60eFbsMlmM3mVN2iBqNxvMP+6PJM 9lnYiqHEA==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:42274 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1lJldG-0003C0-At; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 23:19:18 +0000
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <9d807812-78a7-6066-5c5f-6f2b02507439@bobbriscoe.net> <CADVnQykGJNo3wF7pr4_OYxtzQAaN_A3y6trOQO3T2B8bWiWG+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <85740827-9e28-4f7a-018b-e7da60d9e8ae@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 23:19:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQykGJNo3wF7pr4_OYxtzQAaN_A3y6trOQO3T2B8bWiWG+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D99423072D4376220002CC99"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/TG1Z-tt4OBTl9F3wXZT7gKwy3rY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 23:19:23 -0000

Neal,

On 09/03/2021 02:35, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:19 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net 
> <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>> wrote:
>
>     tsvwg-ers,
>
>     In the survey of the L4S Prague Requirements, we got quite
>     significant push-back from developers about our two requirements
>     to fall back to Reno-Friendly (which the draft defines as a
>     translation of 'TCP-Friendly' into transport-agnostic language,
>     'cos TCP isn't the only transport these days).
>
>     Basically, people don't want to have to fall back to something as
>     lame a Reno (apologies if that's disparaging, but I'm just the
>     messenger).
>
>     I was hoping people would interpret 'Reno-Friendly' liberally. But
>     everyone takes Reno-Friendly to mean quite close to Reno behaviour
>     - not surprising really, given the definition of TCP-Friendly in
>     TFRC is roughly within 2x of Reno [RFC5348] (pasted at the end).
>
>     What I'm looking for is a word that means "does not have a
>     significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion
>     control", which
>     RFC5033 allows for experimental congestion controls.
>
>
>
> Reno-considerate?
>
> Reno-accommodating?

This one is getting closer.




Bob

>
> neal
>

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