Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

["De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Ingemar. Related to the chances for failing: as history learned us, the only real world chance for failing would be that the technology would not be taken up in deployments. This whole codepoint conflict is mainly damaging/creating this deployment 'issue'. The other so called show stoppers are less of an issue for most people that worked on CCs. Blowing 'issues' (not yet implemented/integrated/tested code and bugs) out of proportion is not the way to go forward here.



To give an example:

As mentioned in another thread already: the L4S codepoint, where there's a new queue and new CCs, creates a clean-slate opportunity. This is an opportunity to select new desired behavior.

One of these opportunities here is to make L4S_TCP less RTT dependent. There have been many working implementations for less RTT-dependent CCs in the past. One that is widely deployed is Cubic, which is doing this for getting more throughput for longer RTTs. The only reason why it didn’t fly for lower RTTs on the current Internet is that they would hurt themselves (get lower throughput, competing with Reno).



As we are able to define a new independent behavior and the RTT dependence in L4S is taken serious (some even call it a show stopper) this is even a must do opportunity for L4S. It is all a matter of perspective: show-stopper <-> opportunity.



Let it be clear, I am not against adopting new ideas for implementation of congestions controls and AQMs, as long as they are not contesting with the code point and requirements that were selected and agreed on as part of the L4S BoF. I'm also not against the recent vibrant energy, interest and engagement of people, but I think we can better use this energy in making things work. As you noticed, we can use the help to speed things up on the open source part.

Regards,
Koen.

From: Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:50 AM
To: Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>; Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>; G Fairhurst <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

Hi

So given the imagined outcome that L4S fails.. two scenarios

If other SDOs or developers don’t pick up L4S then things are quite simple I guess, just declare the L4S drafts as deprecated, or is there more to do ?

But, if e.g. 3GPP somehow thinks that this is a good idea and adopts it.. Will the IETF send a message (LS?) to 3GPP with the message “please stop using L4S”, is this even a reasonable scenario?. After all, the fact that it is picked up by other SDOs, speaks against a failure ?

/Ingemar

From: Kyle Rose <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: den 20 november 2019 11:14
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]<mailto:ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]>>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; G Fairhurst <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; De Schepper, Koen (Koen) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:04 PM Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>       How do you expect an industry/commercial roll-out of L4S
> technology to behave, if the L4S experiment should terminated without
> adoption as a standard track RFC? Are they supposed to phase-out using
> ECT(1) as well, or is it understood that deployed L4S instances continue using
> L4S methods?

[IJ] The premise would be that L4S is declared a failure. I doubt that anybody has a good enough crystal ball to predict what happens. First it is necessary to come to the conclusion that L4S is a failure and I would argue that we are not yet there and I don't currently see that coming. Before that possible event I don't see it meaningful to speculate.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you strongly here. Given the potential consequences of cleaning up after a failed experiment without a plan worked out beforehand, this blithe approach is simply not acceptable.

In lots of cases, experiments are easy to terminate in an obvious way: for example, in one typical case, a code point can simply be abandoned, or (even better) a pollutable experimental code point returned to the available pool after some time. If that were the case here, it would not be difficult to enumerate a sequence of steps required to do so. It doesn't appear that's the case, however, so all the more reason to make sure we address this as part of the experiment setup.

A launch escape system of the necessary complexity should be a requirement of any experimental deployment. In this case, that might circumscribe the scope of the experiment itself.

Kyle