IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Thu, 01 October 2020 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pete@heistp.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 F16153A0FBA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heistp.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 kpgG7_kYm3yz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE1333A0FB9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id l15so2113554wmh.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V0vfOkwPn+RSv4/g9O54tZ3GQeXaoAlx7gCDMElKBaY=; b=gacv/2hJXqJmX8LD3ggEvDOMM4cwrxSzgBm6shxzhLE7f9afwxhdi9kJZzaSSXg6Pj YilZA11RsCeH26GNLeSlEr0LZLZsCS00I5L87UGGW2orP9nqg5kmUCp1Oh0qAzIGyMi9 v1tMFjR5hLolDCOLlxmsIQwZx9TqnTPTmwDoOhSC4/2izDEmDAIVUWSXeeph4xlwyW7P PJUwSRkX4g4Q7sQXXJq41cuHtlQpTfGNqWlC7Io2jnpUceM2g0SMJl5r5oRJcz12n9an DRPsbK/p5Y1qYMWglUi5V5ydaoiN++dY1aV6DdIGtWKBa4pan0tG0889NGuStxeee+9W h0yQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V0vfOkwPn+RSv4/g9O54tZ3GQeXaoAlx7gCDMElKBaY=; b=uOskdkuRdlGam1CQmULC+uv21VeJVB8NVhR94yWQSOmXPWxJoNH6BB/m6JPfKzhsS9 0dHWGMGsdd+upGFYEqU95pBTXTyyNPLigHXo6TeMpGeDAC5InigM8/TUbeJvUa4qf7st HFxQZoSOwc/NEOZY0XNVwc5hK5opDTNGPMww4a6SU0JQLuwUfvBx3Rc6gEDnv+JCRmbx Comj3W/peUq/nIcl+q6qRT8h3KU4akNe4i8X4d1CGXmndXVa3MUP3CJybvlxc0N62kPN AIeSx5CYL4Rv1NkjZztsBslD4leCIHX2dEKmrPKhtBDmsxF8NuK1bOewlHoAJvxcm6kr WBhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qKbAIFR8sgaWYtTrO1dWJ+koMwrsW1upzrPNNDzjuN8WDtSVt Z9KN7VN23JmDHH92XDCtLBeDkxnhSUCMKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8i26iOS3iz0S1rb4B1kliZ2OZxqPKhXXfQUgNAeFwQi0Co88Sgzt3Ou1ZOUC9WAJwWLGnlA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1983:: with SMTP id 125mr7945742wmz.29.1601554410020; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 05:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sova.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm8488026wrw.68.2020.10.01.05.13.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 01 Oct 2020 05:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ae5eb008118ab1b88d65e7712a5e3c54b4207e52.camel@heistp.net>
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 14:13:27 +0200
In-Reply-To: <73562E45-3EE7-43D4-B26B-76478AE19AF8@cablelabs.com>
References: <202009291549.08TFnvFV068509@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <c7080365-233c-5f1e-ef5c-1f42c969042a@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <73562E45-3EE7-43D4-B26B-76478AE19AF8@cablelabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/XGCXZTFzmXJiSJZ-KabUcoZF-oY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29
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, 01 Oct 2020 12:13:33 -0000

On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 22:48 +0000, Greg White wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, Issue 29 can be closed. RFC3168 detection should
> continue to evolve and should be referenced in the Operational
> Guidance draft, but fallback should not be required in the
> experimental protocol drafts for the reasons outlined in Issue 29,
> and on the mailing list.

In my opinion, the issues with bottleneck detection and fallback should
be fixed, since this was the proposed way to provide safety for the
alternate meaning of CE being introduced.

The question of whether or not to proceed with these issues still open
sounds like a separate one, but it seems like closing issues without
fixing them would make it hard for someone who wanted to review and
understand what issues are still open.

Pete

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email