[tsvwg] L4S issue #21 - what does the WG expect to be done?
Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Sat, 01 August 2020 15:42 UTC
Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 EF5AD3A0928
for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Usm9qibjbQm5 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sat, 1 Aug 2020 08:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2e])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69623A08EC
for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 08:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2e.google.com with SMTP id s15so11065194qvv.7
for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
bh=OHS88JOwnb641yJaKeABi6zFvIngnqUAKiljkHRSFC8=;
b=Vos4PUZ0+HLvMX7TAwC+OQypcy5poTkCGNerZP8rkp9eGD9SAQSDBVIioyTo0gEiFV
XPzygo20b8aSYJcow1izds3cgG8cxkWeQvlD4oDQmdJEVAf5P6fmTcFED5Mk3MpUONSu
iuxubLAVTJ5l10FmcTgnq2BEtlwbD7MzyHConORvJpudlwp7xlpcBlE5zPAMSw6y3KrE
Y2ugnappj6HULX3lizYwFCflE+YSVvuFfISN32yiQ/xRgqX+C8ZTau0z5qdMy8eIgy4T
4KGEZumlTyLqdfbA0+1tF7BzIXGLEc+W3coLqybpAm5wCod96oe+5WQkmg/AA0LDDDdO
Fc5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
bh=OHS88JOwnb641yJaKeABi6zFvIngnqUAKiljkHRSFC8=;
b=F9QAxXDKNxN6rGcsK8ByoU3hH5baNw6F6M5vBnRAGNB+LdmTu6BMt66m90ip6u8ZCI
VL1FSTwtShQApbqO78+3LKq1YhzYAsoo/uWZMukN3oQPUsiQP5Yhjss3nMNCR/7ajWN8
BcdELPIiS5kAVJTjyIgWy5mpa8j8HuKLPeBKf08SbNboRr3BugE+N3wMUP3GsZQy910t
5sPdwjEuiGAawsiZJdfeVNEffgIuDGltxmKhHotnDUNZj2yKrvJPCfLC0cOp+4RI7siZ
DY4SmcQrT3P1PVMKxPc+SK67mRy7NJRs9le69Nao5jJQ6Zuxvpn5JBUsc6QX8uC6imPO
k5MA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530s9K9vVHU6WcDDXvOs4DlbebAMY+JlZ4f9ajIid2f0ryRPrLbQ
yzbjbQGNSmj2rY23TRVW8WOayPH9agtVRw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeEr8HQlhvfDs8w7+9y3x8gtAjYMTtHNSHtMTojDu3Ym1ROOB8O70mD7xEXSRGzfOHuHsdzw==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:444e:: with SMTP id l14mr8785363qvt.111.1596296526428;
Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (user-12l31c7.cable.mindspring.com.
[69.81.133.135])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y24sm13194732qtv.71.2020.08.01.08.42.05
for <tsvwg@ietf.org>
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <fbec114c-a202-24ad-e356-211c59b6420e@mti-systems.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 11:42:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/dArhdk1tXiugfHByiY7ZZ0F-LPo>
Subject: [tsvwg] L4S issue #21 - what does the WG expect to be done?
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: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 15:42:10 -0000
There was a brief thread on issue #21 ("CE codepoint semantics") previously:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/21
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/OW7IDC9x_ZyOJgh0EuZtWt3omVc/
There was a mixed response to the proposal that we should be closing
this as a duplicate to #16 + #17. I did not see description of what the
people who think this ticket should stay active want to do specifically
in regard to this beyond #16 and #17.
Jonathan made a good point in the thread that #16 and #17 could be
viewed as stemming from this one, though as far as I understand,
changing the usage of CE is not under consideration at the moment, and
the WG's chosen approach is to mitigate the resulting #16+#17 instead.
I also don't think it would make sense to close #16+#17 in favor of
keeping this ticket, since it is a less specific one. As usual, please
correct if I'm misunderstanding.
In order to keep this ticket open, there needs to be a specific goal or
action identified for it that isn't already part of #16+#17.