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

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> Sent: den 9 juni 2020 18:25
> To: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> 
> > On Jun 9, 2020, at 17:01, Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Jun, 2020, at 5:43 pm, Ingemar Johansson S
> <[e-mail]> 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
> >