IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> Mon, 18 May 2020 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <liyizhou@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 A20653A0945 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 01:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8FkSs8DylVGn for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2020 01:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 038583A0942 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2020 01:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8E5894DB58F626F56A59 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2020 09:00:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) by lhreml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 18 May 2020 09:00:13 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 18 May 2020 16:00:11 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 18 May 2020 16:00:11 +0800
From: Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
Thread-Index: AQHWIkAGSxyxIZZc3UCxXnZB32QRJ6itj/Lw
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 08:00:11 +0000
Message-ID: <738fdf4be037499784aeaf1209c9f6e3@huawei.com>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.12.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_738fdf4be037499784aeaf1209c9f6e3huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/WMM_NXDynuHghjkZ7KSYDvTiz1Q>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
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 May 2020 08:00:18 -0000

Hi,

I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network.


Rgds,
Yizhou

From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:15 AM
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)


In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>).


If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this question.


1.    I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.

2.    I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.

3.    There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.


Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email