Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 BD9A63A0D08 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 2_Pf2iUJXj9T for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR05-DB8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db8eur05on2048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.20.48]) (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 62E5C3A0D05 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FFMw8iAyetYD0SHIGrOhlttkGnhAK2qMxTa6ZItrTe/qpKFi5+PWH8Fs1E0+uo34pqyjDWQRSTVU0FGYMcgKxSgIr1ODF13N51WZfs76Ly9wfpb6UUvTnm+x2+RZwzS+SlZkNxvltErSZcvZZwzMx6ri556WQYZoq7ZCeLOHhMthRgKoyjv/Wdr43zNHGn5kYbb95gclnU7CB4MOhG9gA9cmBxxutB34hEKCVRqTSwsvTzkGkmecoTRn3pZLEDcCTUzzlnYXnNxEK7Og+ebmtm9c4Vc6VeXBqnhopUToeZIQpI72OVm2rBYrfwWGZLzsL6Ju2drk5eITovZ1S/7RvA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jLzGByQ/+BYXiviqPjQV6qUF3ojYdmJO4ohCDfe+u1o=; b=esaGqZBKs16ZDXHUdUNEAo/t0Pp63glIWMnf2TmyXQMd5PbEJ0LxN0XqsIGYl8MT1wkYF/lfjfO2SxFDqmaOkJ9mjNp3ejKglVQAV7RjtzCBPY8giuHBIPt4OCJPC2l+2YxVo/iAQBqLfAe+QBuGhxLa5T9eJG+yL4v+U95rDyVFAiTxk5KDRwAB7SSqWIVigcIahMtzdaHD9Da3JAUoCnfbejB5E1TjjLfGKOGfo3MxgYEGLU7XD25gu1qq1+HIJ0khHoV5lwGmiFa0llr1gDI40FAvX60+1F6kdG9Q47mkYdBZjOKqnijvWWZrw1Q14w0H9nZGHK3g9e2Gw5S8sQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jLzGByQ/+BYXiviqPjQV6qUF3ojYdmJO4ohCDfe+u1o=; b=hVg5tmRROtxd0Gm48Y71C1oRuPH7yUtiI4AAghkgSnOxMtMQf7ZRB7SQ44yhgmjlbwkUbsKFwHtk0LtVp+0Hcg/4Nio3nxAdU5s5LM3EEbqOPw+fKHEOOxJbRVqfUd6glAR8cXbvSOM84SZWG6e+tL81klK3RRc24nDukPKpEUw=
Received: from HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:56::8) by HE1PR0701MB2442.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:71::8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3088.10; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:58:12 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f411:8f72:4035:41d1]) by HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f411:8f72:4035:41d1%8]) with mapi id 15.20.3088.018; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:58:12 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
Thread-Index: AQHWPkYZyJNg6cgsQkOoRWoF9Fsxh6jQUFNQgAAFjoCAAAT/IIAABjQAgAAXTICAACKkgA==
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:58:12 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR0701MB287679D1842F15FCDAC6223EC2820@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HE1PR0701MB2876AA3CBBA215B9FB895B0AC2820@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <3637517F-63A0-4862-9885-AB5EA7E6C273@gmail.com> <VI1PR0701MB2877E21B7F406C3DFCFF08BCC2820@VI1PR0701MB2877.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <92525827-39B6-4E88-B453-660F8FE22523@gmx.de> <VI1PR0701MB287768D465C37DC46A459C12C2820@VI1PR0701MB2877.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <57D7632A-594E-47BC-B6B0-5FBC22AAFE37@gmail.com> <DF67B660-DE2B-4EB8-AD77-5FECF27D1BAC@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <DF67B660-DE2B-4EB8-AD77-5FECF27D1BAC@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmx.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmx.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [83.227.122.88]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 21bf22a8-ab8b-43fb-f963-08d80ca70f48
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2442:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0701MB2442271522FEEC594141EBFFC2820@HE1PR0701MB2442.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3276;
x-forefront-prvs: 042957ACD7
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: NesdRpDKSLZ36PvbpBd9fN9llg7h1UhFt8+TL3lYKMRf32GeuiX9EejL9ynJ3DiDilPBB1HHICMKAG8V5e55+e8XRe/coEDE46UrF7ZAXHv1E+omCXrtAK5hdRNQrpbPAdTcTKcIJG84TlWD3I6gayKMsdYiYeUJqVUANSsPOCiYsuM7231rXFmi4Sw7IUM5mXvQAIYYmbMvQsfmja+2kUPo0Pq9hEU+L2oKe0IwAkElsyP/35TPlugXB7NkHAyI3sU2rzyse+AiVt3VFIcCUV2VgleNEE5Wvzb6IHtv7trosA8YE4IfGCxFJY8NqWUWut3l+XH5tOxpulAU2SWZMA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(346002)(376002)(33656002)(71200400001)(66946007)(8936002)(66476007)(26005)(9686003)(64756008)(52536014)(66556008)(53546011)(55016002)(6506007)(66616009)(66446008)(86362001)(8676002)(5660300002)(2906002)(76116006)(186003)(107886003)(4326008)(99936003)(110136005)(66574014)(316002)(478600001)(54906003)(83380400001)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02EE_01D63EA0.AF4DCF90"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 21bf22a8-ab8b-43fb-f963-08d80ca70f48
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jun 2020 18:58:12.6698 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: iQ0PWhrKNvfMsDlVxMdjBpAQGtZm9t17leqvxaslGrSqBJRXFRpqpqQ/SkiQflep3ND4442sfB/ivzOB6JpL8n3sj9I6GStgGuD0xS6kTrTA+eU0SiLnnrNO9PHNIqqB
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2442
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/pcp52IFT0qyl-kGkqDB_ZiJiq8w>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:58:18 -0000

Hi
Just for my understanding, do you seek evidence that L4S can be safely
deployed before the experiment actually starts or is the collection of
evidence a part of the experiment?

To take 3GPP networks as an example. I don't expect that initial experiments
will run across the entire internet. And as this experiment carries on I see
a likelihood that RFC3168 ECN capable AQM where they may be will/can be
upgraded to support L4S as well ? Meanwhile one will learn things from the
experiments and will be able to refine congestion control algorithms. Does
it sound all too unrealistic?

This boils down to the two questions that I had in another thread.
1) How widely are  RFC3168 ECN capable AQMs deployed _and_ enabled ?
2) If they are deployed _and_ enabled, can/will they be updated ?

/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Sent: den 9 juni 2020 18:25
> To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>om>;
> tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> 
> > On Jun 9, 2020, at 17:01, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Jun, 2020, at 5:43 pm, Ingemar Johansson S
> <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Why don't you run the testing yourself to get the answers you look
for?.
> >
> > Because we are looking for cases where SCReAM (and other L4S
> transports) fail - and we have already found sufficient such cases to
raise
> objections.  We don't need to look further.
> >
> > The burden of proof is now on you (and the rest of the L4S proponents)
to
> show that these problems have been overcome.    This will require
> *changes* to L4S, and testing of an implementation of that changed
> specification.
> >
> > Sebastian merely listed a few general scenarios where we know L4S does
> badly.
> 
> 	[SM] Well, to be generous, these are important scenarios where we
> know way too little about L4S' robustness and reliability. The recent
testing
> indicates that L4S has ample opportunity to improve its performance/safety
> under these conditions.
> 	Now, I have a hard time believing that none of the engineers and
> companies that opted for L4S did this based purely on the obviously
overly-
> optimistic promises in the L4S drafts and the RITE project. So, I would
really
> appreciate if data that was acquired in the process of seeing whether L4S
> was/is fit for roll-out and implementation in silicon (if that actually
happened
> at all) could be presented here on the list.
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
> 
> > Those are tests which you should run internally as part of your R&D
cycle,
> and then present results of, in order to give us confidence that L4S can
safely
> be deployed.
> 
> 	[SM] +1.
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> >
> > - Jonathan Morton
> >