Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> Wed, 20 November 2019 20:53 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 E699412011C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 utvk-wQB8pMI for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x642.google.com (mail-pl1-x642.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::642]) (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 3870112012D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x642.google.com with SMTP id w7so338952plz.12 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dMupQ5Nxn5t60vCj0VyZ0x8LRfcXLr2HtVyqy1yNaz0=; b=JpUWVL8NJ9TEHA/Cg/CLMIRaO5Kiao+yjuufmqWEu0phZfx3oNvf5/5u1uY/9lJjN6 bWyDdbOVIT7qBDL9Zkx5IPkJEiA1IKObSFV4M2Va2zgmOugFKOiHH0BSxnFqY2i3yxP6 OeUUUdSc9s2VrPEYEcMh7EqJldrLl/ExRsneOH9KI6gkweo84+1ahb3TOLXXR7SW8CWI ZahIdQE5pV4l009EOtCVIvmYBMKYmu1vFjWiGZJbzmwYGIbt2oSLTb/NVCDlvRr0LZur q2J3Q+Nezaci9HtN4RgWBRH4KEngVXw7mb/d4XqPxZMmXB+f3GOIpScBOZnO9+q2vdc8 3tyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dMupQ5Nxn5t60vCj0VyZ0x8LRfcXLr2HtVyqy1yNaz0=; b=DpE6mLh/Kdq49VX9Jz/cF2ibS4Sq1+R14OyZO/Y1RLc9nJH6LqrJj6argfsrBSXyne xZxGSsSbgCTY/VeRnPm9EGDGsR7tSJ198tnonEbQIfDikhkFHee5aGpWUHWBJ0zKBtTu JyoaRoyylHmRS85O1ulICUqJVotFS683srDauOWD2a3cH/Yi0g4XXGkkXk1qgtNf4++J wWSYcV7ILWyobh3/sSHFVpzl58/m2Sqh2Kbsqvk6PenW4SudJ4+YiWRtiwxwmn44sTY8 z6OGWx/HXyTbIr8V1xDsI0dTnq6kVnA0HsnksWpQi2YmTahq5B1mmzH527n1E1OzRx8L A4lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWU0yEpg9pghH0oI5oxltTQYBxmyxq43e+h8D8Au24i2LXg1230 5dnkOZGmj238Zr+y3obDGbzp00wSt7I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwtASFqgz3w0SZRqBK6VZdxf6+w9252jYeV+r8se0SOU3ItRlcjXjjRZm6esSzNcsOB+q5MeQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f496:: with SMTP id bx22mr6624990pjb.101.1574283184655; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yoda.lan ([182.55.197.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm283526pfg.117.2019.11.20.12.53.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
In-Reply-To: <357abfd2-2d93-b4cf-355a-71a2def32b15@gmx.at>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 04:53:00 +0800
Cc: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E175102C-CD01-40B3-9807-3DE0C2DB8277@heistp.net>
References: <HE1PR07MB44250F3C4E6A744DDCC3DAFCC24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <ad7b763e-b3dd-36cf-a9c5-7de99476babb@mti-systems.com> <12ED7632-5E3E-4EB9-B65E-8A8324067C9A@akamai.com> <5DD4BB25.3060700@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5658232C-07D5-4C89-B16A-58A928332FC6@gmx.de> <HE1PR07MB4425D989D4A266C73331FFA5C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAJU8_nUK5cZLFE-0UBzf0a7T0hC7C+CpCsUy_+ZU_p4oxW9BmQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB442560D0715BC921AB9B7FE3C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM4PR07MB345968E8C665304DFBD5B11FB94F0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <228d061d-f25e-b350-4a6e-2aea827a590c@kit.edu> <e5a7ed0e-90cb-10a9-c55f-0ba8d2144ecd@bobbriscoe.net> <2AFFF85C-E66F-4CF4-AA62-6F7249A16959@heistp.net> <357abfd2-2d93-b4cf-355a-71a2def32b15@gmx.at>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/XKQunCraWpf7WXm29VIJdcQ5-AQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE
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, 20 Nov 2019 20:53:08 -0000

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 4:28 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs.ietf@gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pete,
> 
> Am 20.11.2019 um 21:20 schrieb Pete Heist:
>> 
>> In my opinion, what would enable future innovation in CCs is a signaling mechanism that is completely safe by design,
> 
> Is this a plug for AccECN? ;) (I just looked and found that we started
> that work back in 2011…)
  :)
>> without the need for protection mechanisms,
> 
> Are you referring to secondary signals like loss, CE or in a different
> context?

CE, if thought as a protection mechanism, rather than just a stronger signal, is not one that needs much further evaluation.

It does seem that a publicly accessible short, low-latency queue would need protection, even if not mandated.

>> allowing alternatives to be explored without a risk-benefit analysis.
> 
> A basic risk-benefit analysis should always be done. Even benign
> optimizations can change the dynamics of a CC.

Good point, but the additional risks that a second congestion signal adds should only be reduced performance that doesn’t impact other flows.

:)