Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
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 A4C6112090D; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:49:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=aUWeQflh; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cE8ZjsGt
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 xN6Nm-4xMPMc; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com [148.163.137.20]) (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 770F6120908; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170395.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xA8Kl0wF031573; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:48:48 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=XG+zSaq0UJKcv8J2Uc4n6Q9ymhn6lN0oTp6WL2QCEuU=; b=aUWeQflhQ23CHf8wp1OfRvdUqDK6szLXTewpsgSGiDCp+8g1RE9OyxWycu5xCKofX5ba eDceJEcxVA80URd+NVHrxqoBuUvmm2le3SgEC1HAZDkCgCoVwthaBGj9nkH74Z4vBMOY nKJ+HxX4VHaOa2brxipcQg9WPIHLxNxeGnTpqhLxPEK+fKeosJERMLURYfemGPaICt6k QrvNP4vgkhuHwczyiF+5QYJrrtLEdol7SHgbpdj9drBGwoMuG1X0Qmwd/UFbn51dhyZ5 VMUADzopmax84KpDFnbSvdki7BkHya50QjEOPUeBKePg5MQeSSRa8yCwcKeRaL/5JU4A qw==
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com [67.231.157.37]) by mx0b-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w41uwvc4t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:48:47 -0500
Received: from pps.filterd (m0144102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xA8Kh7Vf020077; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:48:47 -0500
Received: from nam03-dm3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03lp2052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.52]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w41wngn61-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:48:47 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=a09Oq4fAKKMNYJiooBeW+yDLPNxAvG/o06qctrvNqEQ76+kiYMqWRSrN4xLwM90d2m5UyKuhh8H613DtGPU2SuT8jsaR1lU0D6a1v1dpErXHEiHQ1mrb9oo7PezjTwfC39ufM94bRhje8R7J1Tdt+6CAHLUi8TU+jDYjpbXZptlB4bONMgvUuWeG5RpDRn8b4dRl3u5gKxIkDHKXNU4N+1kEeCjGqFNO31d3DGOeRpA8foHv1QH/JnnuSYsmADHY8amNCxcKGZp7UchtDCKjN7XLZjwx18CeqzOJHPs/ak0crOCfAApvvLssqx/9nQPWPvR29isRZhl+6AInSElMpw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=XG+zSaq0UJKcv8J2Uc4n6Q9ymhn6lN0oTp6WL2QCEuU=; b=Ke4lcaCU+g2nqRPuZCFdrun9Ck1BRXz4V3uZXCBuFkvT/zYsxGtjP37IDevuylA6TO11PFP+oml9dfxUYst/jejKhppaTqxnRWu6lZ6oUIPwftrbRFDNtpu2zAu9Tcj4zcAagFltagMJDWr6tQLtSuOXdjNVZO5zqP7hiL/FxfB2qsnOuvLXwIVryEgDdTgolBU3r4ZdpsDoMh0ezC5n5G4AzPAix3W++U6J6/Dp8E5elCJRkkH8MsBKrjXuG2/nC9G49DJi/hpopMq5qOM8g3mlrXxCUB6uoQHa9mk63DqOtUCuyle3ywDLnmX2VpXk+Ot5ZJXs3xJImioSE45zTA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dell.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=dell.com; dkim=pass header.d=dell.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Dell.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-Dell-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=XG+zSaq0UJKcv8J2Uc4n6Q9ymhn6lN0oTp6WL2QCEuU=; b=cE8ZjsGtIBBh8unbuNzPfD7enXaxGWcd1Roqtaf8XzgVARojZlNUUAB6qHgxMGyQQNkks5AvJZJ4cGu+oEbjczcXLoav10Rg7p/bLyrfGfcJHw5FFLIxenTp3G57aXD+TPNjlGurKaZdG98SAnFyop3LaDIzSYAqmoRkOGrwIoQ=
Received: from MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (10.186.145.137) by MN2PR19MB2445.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (20.179.83.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2430.24; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:48:45 +0000
Received: from MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8893:d435:ce32:3594]) by MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8893:d435:ce32:3594%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2430.023; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:48:45 +0000
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
Thread-Index: AQHVkzsNys8itt0WdkerjoDylubqfqd7X/CAgAACeQCAAAFigIAB5lwAgAB1iQCAALwYgIAABesAgAAP1ICAAM3XgIACZC0Q
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:48:45 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR19MB4045216D5E55A08FA8E04859837B0@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <bc12fc37-2c7a-d6c4-8372-3b341682c4bf@bobbriscoe.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E64F3@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <f4b5bc68-5735-eccd-9abc-0e6a8d8e4ab2@mti-systems.com> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E732D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E732D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SiteId=945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Owner=david.black@emc.com; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SetDate=2019-11-08T20:48:42.9589790Z; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Name=External Public; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Extended_MSFT_Method=Manual; aiplabel=External Public
x-originating-ip: [168.159.213.213]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 11dc873a-50a8-4ac3-e689-08d7648d0c87
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR19MB2445:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR19MB24455D98B4EFCF0929337F2D837B0@MN2PR19MB2445.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
x-exotenant: 2khUwGVqB6N9v58KS13ncyUmMJd8q4
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0215D7173F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(54094003)(199004)(189003)(7502003)(102836004)(186003)(486006)(53546011)(256004)(66476007)(9686003)(3846002)(76116006)(236005)(14454004)(6246003)(66556008)(86362001)(66446008)(6506007)(26005)(6116002)(11346002)(446003)(74316002)(4326008)(476003)(55016002)(54896002)(6306002)(2906002)(52536014)(66946007)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(7696005)(25786009)(64756008)(33656002)(7736002)(66066001)(786003)(316002)(99286004)(5660300002)(790700001)(54906003)(6436002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(478600001)(229853002)(66574012)(6916009)(8676002)(76176011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR19MB2445; H:MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: dell.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FK25Eub9H4tGj/vwVQpErVBKFscNZU2ICvEmm0sEFeYqvhLf3ToneS6H6z5xiidyhJQuyoiKeHcfRO+MVwmkn2ZbWgtw6CRTx+6WXNVNLnAIMra4AjdReepQSo4iHbLKTzxulocVFpli/9Q+R6TtI1PML+lnbdCONg/hGFfDXvfc5/tpmmoeOM+16JPk4sxyLn3dM752CyiEdLTITPrY2nY9HhRENdNIg1MPtDD3u4qCUoGfLMidrJcJf4JbR79QilVVcVSp/s01oNgL5Czwbe2jvyrobqizB4oVMthClI63psRnU6JAQRiaBt0E9VES3MM2o82ziHRs8jXSG7goJ+RnaocwwsE3kQzglPgRJ5KvvOEv/lQOztqjyvkvJjq90+5AK1rKjdQjcbB7FV3hdrNNUfrX3UhY4IdGHAMYQzeXRTQ1+zaU0cOMjNhxv+Li
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR19MB4045216D5E55A08FA8E04859837B0MN2PR19MB4045namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Dell.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 11dc873a-50a8-4ac3-e689-08d7648d0c87
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Nov 2019 20:48:45.7114 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: uWc2ew1357DuD2B44DEUm2yzDBVwUxy6K7eibcDNhQgdwMaU6jNiWIXE78dAJC1F664eE5IbqL4v43/ZB0czfA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR19MB2445
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-08_08:2019-11-08,2019-11-08 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911080198
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911080200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/cENAzw73aqPZkmP5OcnNnTrxnoI>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
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, 08 Nov 2019 20:49:01 -0000

Hopefully not adding confusion, I'm in favor of Michael's suggestion (below), as I understand it:
                - L4S has a "Classic" service
                - Protocols and traffic that use the L4S "Classic" service are identified/named/described with terms other than "Classic".

For congestion control in particular, I've found myself referring to 1/p and 1/sqrt(p) congestion response behaviors for technical clarity/precision in discussion, but those terms don't exactly roll off the tip of the tongue ... and assume that the reader is familiar enough with TCP throughput equations to know what the variable p stands for.

Thanks, --David

From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:11 AM
To: Wesley Eddy; Bob Briscoe; Rodney W. Grimes
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
... and just to show that _my_ concern would be trivial to address by small editorial changes:

For the abstract of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, the wording "It gives an incremental migration path so that normal TCP traffic classified in the 'Classic' service of L4S will be no worse off" would already work for me.  It just takes a small editorial change to make me happy. This can't be so hard.

Personally, I wonder if "classic" is indeed the best name for a service class (and, e.g., "normal" sounds better to me), but in the context of a service class, "classic" could actually work for me, if TSVWG really wants that name with strong consensus. I don't care how about names for DiffSe^D^D^D^D^D^D traffic classifiers, traffic policers/shapers, AQM schemes, or whatever else is done in the fast path of a router to implement low latency service.

I only object to specific terminology such as 'Classic' TCP or 'Classic' congestion control because I don't think that 'classic' is a proper characterization for TCPM standards or TCP/IP stack behavior not aligned with whatever L4S believes the bright future shall be.

Whether such small rewording address fully the concerns from others may be a different question.

Michael



From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:54 PM
To: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>>; Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>>; Rodney W. Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net<mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

On 11/6/2019 1:57 PM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
Bob,

>From draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-08: "It gives an incremental migration path so that existing 'Classic' TCP traffic will be no worse off"

You are proposing an experiment. Not more than that. I will be fine with the term "Classic" for TCP and TCPM-specified congestion control when more than 50% of Internet traffic uses that new technology.

Until this happens, I insist that the word "Classic" must be removed in all context of TCP and congestion control (as far as it is owned by TCPM), including the reference above. BTW, "normal" as suggested would also work for me. So, you have plenty of options for other terms.




If Dave+Michael's suggestion of replacing "classic" with "normal" is agreable to others, this seems like a good way forward to me.  It should be easy enough to explain in other SDOs that classic and normal mean the same thing, if this is a real issue.

(FWIW, I've never had a problem myself with "classic", nor read any negative connotations to it.  However, for the sake of working group progress, I think we just need to pick something that seems the least terrible and agree to move on.)