Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 13 November 2019 10:00 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 912EB120088; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 02:00:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UnnztjaqXzjW; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 02:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (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 E4484120052; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 02:00:06 -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=Ooa88qMG9f4LdQpLXBS+2LxjB4VHeqfyHHfDXmR5WXI=; b=0QaNqAR2nIsau0H0cqFGsHj8w tdF4RnOu4esms8pibn1iXgrobMOvw1xWa6+HvK1NLiVXhG6Qdl1lUyyaNPSLb6LSTPh5DdTEdnh8s HJx0+C94LJpI7G1pMEmCmHT9BCfMVjWRb9h7MRBn/GcN3gRxi1f7Hpv8E+35N1zLRZBUcJtsBGhMm Cl5fYRpORABuLCCv0hXmL2nGhBA8qSiCiVrxMrF6947aQT2IgaWG/EUIOvpDHKETN6b5aF47NJrnA 8Lb8IrOWY+tu7gMjBqUoDFAaurDBTFL/aM57EumYio1tT9uDz4g/xWob/SJFMxs9vDHw9k4iVHjW2 mV/dpMJHg==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=49852 helo=[192.168.0.5]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1iUpRV-0000yA-1n; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:00:05 +0000
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <bc12fc37-2c7a-d6c4-8372-3b341682c4bf@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E64F3@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <f4b5bc68-5735-eccd-9abc-0e6a8d8e4ab2@mti-systems.com> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E732D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <4f5dc8cb-0c20-c38e-ac80-0b6b111c93ee@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4FB9BA@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <805428c6-9852-ad02-8d31-c9e9199cb46e@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:00:04 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4FB9BA@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2C3E5127504B1214A86383DC"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
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: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/TJ8GIOXIx2KTsZ15MqNFbn_Vl7g>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
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, 13 Nov 2019 10:00:10 -0000

Michael,

I see the problem. Nearly all the occurrences of 'Classic TCP' are in 
the appendix that was written v early on, when the focus was only TCP. 
That text was not written by me, and I haven't got round to editing it 
for consistency. However, there are 4 occurrences of "'Classic' TCP" in 
the abstract and intro, which I will also fix.

Can you say which "David's proposal" you mean please?


Bob

On 11/11/2019 23:10, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> OK, so we seem to make some progress at least regarding the term 
> ‚classic‘ TCP. As mentioned before, I personally would find the term 
> ‘Classic’ QUIC very confusing and you cannot avoid that if you talk 
> about ‘Classic’ TCP, IMHO. So, it seems better to avoid that 
> terminology for all transport protocols. For the record, in 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-08 the combination of the terms ‘classic’ 
> and ‘TCP’ back-to-back is used 11 times as far as I can see.
>
> Regarding congestion control, I’d like to emphasize that David’s 
> proposal would also work well for me, i.e., characterizing the 
> congestion control by functional properties. This avoids all issues 
> regarding whether something will supersede something else (including 
> the issue that EXP is just an experiment that won’t update or replace 
> any PS document).
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2019 4:31 PM
> *To:* Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>de>; Wesley Eddy 
> <wes@mti-systems.com>om>; Rodney W. Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
> *Cc:* tsvwg@ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
> Michael,
>
> On 07/11/2019 08:11, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
>     … and just to show that _/my/_ concern would be trivial to address
>     by small editorial changes:
>
>     For the abstract of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, the wording “It
>     gives an incremental migration path so that normal TCP traffic
>     classified in the ‘Classic’ service of L4S will be no worse off”
>     would already work for me.  It just takes a small editorial change
>     to make me happy. This can’t be so hard.
>
>     Personally, I wonder if “classic” is indeed the best name for a
>     service class (and, e.g., “normal” sounds better to me), but in
>     the context of a service class, “classic” could actually work for
>     me, if TSVWG really wants that name with strong consensus. I don’t
>     care how about names for DiffSe^D^D^D^D^D^D traffic classifiers,
>     traffic policers/shapers, AQM schemes, or whatever else is done in
>     the fast path of a router to implement low latency service.
>
>     I only object to specific terminology such as ‘Classic’ TCP or
>     ‘Classic’ congestion control because I don’t think that ‘classic’
>     is a proper characterization for TCPM standards or TCP/IP stack
>     behavior not aligned with whatever L4S believes the bright future
>     shall be.
>
> I thought I had already agreed to remove 'TCP' from all instances of 
> 'Classic TCP traffic' etc, and that I hadn't intended to include 'TCP' 
> in the first place. Because it's the congestion controls that are 
> relevant in L4S drafts, not the protocols.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>     Whether such small rewording address fully the concerns from
>     others may be a different question.
>
>     Michael
>
>     *From:*Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> <mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:54 PM
>     *To:* Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
>     <mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Bob Briscoe
>     <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>; Rodney W.
>     Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
>     *Cc:* tsvwg@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org
>     <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
>     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 Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

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