Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

Jonathan Morton <> Wed, 20 November 2019 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5D61208E7; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AqDAeGEmfHL; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A60120B65; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e3so13690265plt.7; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=udYaAgSS98oUWTDpxRpuZ8IrosxqufHQEetkUYJ95IY=; b=nAhivtZOM5Y8AHK8DRWHqEpFbDVMmSa2QDb4mID56P+GIxt51QepdStMWMj1ZCDoYB 427Ow9OjrqvUNIs6+hMazRhXhwDzfkOkmoLSaxDLiRy9mtsTmjaAcnUb6i2vlKOsmeo/ e6XqatHybnFyPTp0gIcZmQSU6Ds0NKrcHij5fLHTYfbSX7tXSvyrrTxXzpDdz59clkuV X7y39QEautqYry+VoW0WnAdg3cnaCJ/v0uQDZ4Jc4PdzxqD+H7bgiXSqukvG1KSg5B08 tydLBWnmSkhd+HavKQSh7tHD8/UA9Mkw/O7GNqOP18S7oWHaVMosMZC4EWdwtFdpm6fV dQMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=udYaAgSS98oUWTDpxRpuZ8IrosxqufHQEetkUYJ95IY=; b=DJ1tablBaOtBz/XfSYX9+ssDPjPykWVyQqm7mIVs1FJALugvr35S02O7FxhgkHjZw1 2W3uEBj4y3fBgEcBpSuQC7g9IB25TS+9TLgztyN+dy3UUj8vbTlOpS6IfqEpomVNqVFU 1J+D07kY6ZTg9kakR2D3O0p/ajv984+Mn9cSwFf2VtRthaMz3MOz45MqQ1w433Fmwl2y 8nik6e9sR7wnOxhSSoJIH9OmoNCVASKeL7NMcOqQG2xusbAN/dgZb0aBNV2E3+48syDD QrdEbMLevjdIHLkk4m19xGvGfXtzndVJG1EgcnD2905I0MnnNarkCOFvM98ricLOQbnR cfaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVTQXfzcKFmHgzvlJrM7uNTEMSUlo7xBIi6p+LtV64G9Yi+Md2v MkrD4ECs8Xv+shbmGRLqpTY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqycmU5o8atZgkBL9K8gRs0JbsDjHzeRgg3QT0oOHbvwGZBAxnMKP3Eg/ZgQCvMGgWTss896EA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b184:: with SMTP id s4mr2470090plr.236.1574248915942; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ([]) by with ESMTPSA id a66sm30263285pfb.166.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:21:48 +0800
Cc: Kyle Rose <>, Ingemar Johansson S <>, G Fairhurst <>, "" <>, "" <>, "De Schepper, Koen (Koen)" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:21:58 -0000

> On 20 Nov, 2019, at 6:49 pm, Ingemar Johansson S <> wrote:
> But, if e.g. 3GPP somehow thinks that this is a good idea and adopts it.. Will the IETF send a message (LS?) to 3GPP with the message “please stop using L4S”, is this even a reasonable scenario?. After all, the fact that it is picked up by other SDOs, speaks against a failure ?

In this context I think it's wise to be on guard against perverse incentives and externalised costs.  There may, for example, be significant financial incentives to introduce a "fast lane" for Internet subscribers which is somehow "endorsed" by a standards body.

I think the IETF is in a good position to resist such charms, but as an industry body the 3GPP might not be.  If the latter is taking their initial cues from the IETF, we need to be sure that they will also respond appropriately to an experiment termination.

 - Jonathan Morton