Re: [tsvwg] closed L4S issue #20 on use of ECT(1)

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Fri, 05 June 2020 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 BEBD73A07C3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 MtdjOCE1_qI3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 C56803A07BC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1591371301; bh=ygpu9rDrS0Tt1VbpPMIDp31wXqWPAFrhswpb202UQe8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=lvxXEL9Ib8LZRZlMLRFFlfNwRa+rNT7sKEczDh+BRbVgNypx5YA6PS8XfS4R+5j8Y bTuSm5613JT2F1+MYgYa/OdiVN0xi6KGgqBIIveQVaGUJZXzjm4lF4SZ70Js6XHvE1 bbow8Ls+B5VDS0Fe+AeA1kVYNkZFiQRWeS1qaOeE=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [10.11.12.3] ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0G1n-1imwOR483T-00xHze; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 17:35:01 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <202006051322.055DMJHO030673@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 17:35:00 +0200
Cc: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D76E2C3-A077-4B59-9B07-3BBDAD9D6C47@gmx.de>
References: <202006051322.055DMJHO030673@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Oxlm82jpT9clYf9y184iRjse2lC+6oPN8YaERyyLh6/Du2is7E+ sdnTQfdYbUic+td4HCdBZquMG0XWTus7YXDScnwFC5zzo0rbGwH1VEK3tQMEYZPpR5z7zvG AtfeOvq0ZE9EjMCF6C0GbAS2lbnh7soE3FFztfeXzU24PUyacg7aESuN8oXODoM9YTUDh5P QA6uzOTHTHTqzQe/6AB+A==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:VqYlf3GZLH4=:tlNxC1CUWk7xxo5J/7wNU7 JIDqUA3eqYLDLKmR81NnoiexbAKU7qfaEjAnQr08uOU3juvaQ1d3V7FiVrKmy7ScoliBTPeA8 2Cu7oZSXRoYRXFvs2SVkkSPsARxecCrt+/7xf/TqkXgoQOZ7y09bByNVN5ulL0r8LdmPyZ0gA 04+1/Lswa65jkE8zcmy5bTuVWwO5SJH6+0x+PHV37O2d3OMaakA49sm4p1kSYGnbcH9lBnhZq K0rcfWlFvlpMhte2tCpUzdJXjRqMwrTGb4c10zw60N0AYxDYtz6oadK++4L5PXQrUum9wEPCs e4a/UGOnNFmmhHVSeSAZfOWvX8QR3aNAnwM2vkvV+23V+H1hOte4VUT48csI0pCII+1Lj43+o QAN+DIolFHkX5p6mAxbqme/ErGmlxsuNLfBLiqpB+sEIyloD5/e8hYTO0EhlWhaYmTOe7xhBS 6MtMZQU1d29mO1nR72SJMRQuYSxx7suThw0bJH2rjIjVOPQkQPOKa2hPXKRgG7MVLd4o8MpzG fE98XIs3XvxYj9pazXWJKABhuCgsJK8i2CdGG6slWEwjQf2kzFtr6zfBXVk0tRkdcC+o8sdoT ZYgBhc6ox5jMgZ3IzjXFbWg6p2SDdlarDyrUp/NZuf660GKj5rwDyXdpupGx2fcW0FOVaIpy+ Fbfaq+/F1/PisRMRDMV1uuSw+SFihO8cS/lvn1EBmaJV31gX6viYa0JHTqsQ7DhCnc2UppVz1 QPjSOwwQcNVLgIMoCS2W45VKdKVs14ULFDP8bmb+0jdhMg17JycZLUhzuxvKTA5bc+3w51GIi RaIXR5HyxfSDzrsalHgZXUcmxAGmpcPr9thk7uvDF+f4twY79jBMAxz9mVLOgGA6L80SXoGPb X+xtQVAh7IIWkg2ZHlNhHnwhxEMgqRnZ2N6nwWKLXuckAPPqGIz7Npl0rDcu180OrQXunoz1q jEPz+r/OcB5o30fe/gKgjLZoh085RoFHFk6o+vSuNzmHmGlxdTMSAp3Z3odc6NpPijwdoF+pz AGZn/yiDROMdbrOgYK8kxs73h/3VS1vNH0TAh4kys9tyOsu9xERmdyK+ZrsxM81XyLthwB0aj FIexsC2zGuyLzVgalTuMqYoP3dd1h061BJ1c//JkMDfEAxutWJ62wKw/aGF3Ykx4O4koDcuxN FmiWRbjkYyul3HBeZB9/WUI3mqRW/MqdG/1U4Mo/ZqMaGDVIkPkB0ozevwj56CKWQFVPH8P3a nkiLOruPNUHM6JPJZ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/YzdEGqV99yOZ3nc03TouhTYJFZM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closed L4S issue #20 on use of ECT(1)
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:35:09 -0000

Dear chairs,

I want to take this opportunity too highlight a section in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-10#page-9
that in my opinion needs work in the light of Rodney's observation about the nature of the found consensus:


"2.  Consensus Choice of L4S Packet Identifier: Requirements

   This subsection briefly records the process that led to a consensus
   choice of L4S identifier, selected from all the alternatives in Appendix B..."


I have looked through a number of recent  meeting minutes and video recordings, and I can not find any explicit call for reaching consensus on the L4S identifier, 
Could someone just clue me in on the exact meeting this consensus was found or could the draft text adjusted to reflect the scope and the group that reached that consensus? 


Best Regards
	Sebastian 


> On Jun 5, 2020, at 15:22, Rodney W. Grimes <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/4/2020 2:20 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> I did not see consensus. What I saw was the principal inventor of ecn
>>> (kk), the ns3 maintainer, myself and a few others,
>>> calling for more testing. Others on the SCE front, voted for option 2.
>>> 
>>> Then there was a bunch of folk that had never participated on this
>>> list before, voting.
>> 
>> We don't vote, and there never was a vote.? Many people with long 
>> histories of participation in this working group and others expressed 
>> their positions.? Some were sent offlist, which you would not have 
>> seen.? All 3 co-chairs and the ADs collaborated on evaluating the total 
>> set of inputs and deciding how to proceed. This was not done by counting 
>> a vote, so there should be no concern about that.
> 
> What the chairs said, from my read of it, is that they are going to
> go forward with L4S.  I did not see them declare ECT(1) as an input
> being in consensus, and thus object to closing this issue as that
> consenses is not in evidence.
> 
> L4S itself offers alternatives to use of ECT(1) and this issue is about
> that selection even within the draft.  The issue may need reworded to
> minimize references to SCE, but that does not remove the issue either.
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org
>