IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 19 November 2019 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 9BCED1200C4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:20:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 D8t84sp1iPXl for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (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 779A61208B1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1iX0cT-0007fw-8n; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:20:25 +0100
Received: from dhcp-9b1e.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.155.30]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1iX0cO-000AEA-Fw; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:20:25 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB44257A563B5DB08450E249E5C24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:20:14 +0800
Cc: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEE6B55E-85C9-45FF-AF59-B1A68DB55C77@ifi.uio.no>
References: <HE1PR07MB4425A6B56F769A5925FF5AA0C2720@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0F5F9FA9-FC09-4679-8A6A-45F93A6A6ED5@akamai.com> <HE1PR07MB44257A563B5DB08450E249E5C24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 31.133.155.30 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.155.30; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-9b1e.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: E9ABB12235CBD150BE54F60595638FA83856C715
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/aNZZ3D17hOU0LrTc35VVWFbJVJ8>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce
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, 19 Nov 2019 10:20:34 -0000

JUST A CORRECTION  (*), because that was our work:

> FQ-CoDel is not problem free either see 
> http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/networking/networking2017/1570335770.pdf , which 
> later on led to the alternate recommendations in RFC8511, in other words the 
> unfairness issues are to be addressed in the endpoints.

We only evaluated CoDel, not FQ-CoDel, and this didn’t focus on fairness.
FQ_* is quite fair AFAIK  :-)

So… the unfairness issue wasn’t the argument in this paper that led to RFC 8511.

Cheers,
Michael

---
(*) the use of capitals here means: I am NOT a participant in this discussion, OH MY GOD I am not, PLEASE don’t involve me!!!   … I’m merely correcting a statement about our own earlier work.  I do enjoy watching the debate from a safe distance, though.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email