Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

* I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network.

Having better feedback (more fine grained congestion signal)
from the network is really valuable in various contexts.
ECT(1) could be used as output for various different approaches,
not just L4S. I believe that a DSCP can be used as input signal
for L4S instead.

Regards,
 Roland

On 04.05.20 at 20:15 Wesley Eddy wrote:
> **
> 
> *In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following
> viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a
> different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the
> list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly ([e-mail]). *
> 
> *
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting
> video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this
> question.
> 
> 
>  1.
> 
>     I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is
>     the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position
>     does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that
>     the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the
>     current drafts.
> 
>  2.
> 
>     I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is
>     consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the
>     internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this
>     group.
> 
>  3.
> 
>     There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a
>     decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your
>     response.
> 
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
> *
>