Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Mon, 11 November 2019 15:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
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 03C2612004A; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:30:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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=bobbriscoe.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 18fZPe-Ba8bk; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (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 9C23F12086A; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:30:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=dOj27pRFe+7vSOLymT7ggPf6ICTDBI7FOazO20IVDl4=; b=pDrT4jIiR8PRiBLzhz6JlNiAp KKB1Fx9CgS2GeVuXfBnyekbTjv7GcxuB7kO/liX9AiyVqGL1ED6FZ4ykW2t+eO/Fc6U7H0W7W5ppF oae/A9n/eTjEHzdiiVTJKb/L/cFh3PvnJP2ynMOlJdTqPsnwN+/0I3gkiVrvVa7RiE02t0Pu4GNpW kxqbD6C5EaOY3zb3nDPbfyCRVc4IhOb4Uqhev9e9Yl8sIdI6CBIHh2ho7YvT/1qZmbfJhUEK0u3+E xqxewGboGfYOMvwVQ4vZICdoX1k6gnQtZpV2N9JOeEy1XW+VemNhLpTfP3cNHeL4wTHB7hx4M43ss 4n7FexK4w==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=55936 helo=[192.168.0.11]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1iUBeN-00081h-O1; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:30:44 +0000
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
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>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <4f5dc8cb-0c20-c38e-ac80-0b6b111c93ee@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:30:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E732D@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------23A40A32E98C52F9EA3808FB"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/dEcYtrHfkxc6E3eH1g83iQW-Ypg>
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:30:48 -0000
Michael, On 07/11/2019 08:11, Scharf, Michael wrote: > > … 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. > I thought I had already agreed to remove 'TCP' from all instances of 'Classic TCP traffic' etc, and that I hadn't intended to include 'TCP' in the first place. Because it's the congestion controls that are relevant in L4S drafts, not the protocols. Bob > > Whether such small rewording address fully the concerns from others > may be a different question. > > Michael > > *From:*Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:54 PM > *To:* Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Bob Briscoe > <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>; Rodney W. Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> > *Cc:* tsvwg@ietf.org; 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.) > -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
- [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- [tsvwg] fq_codel deployment size Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Bless, Roland (TM)
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] L4S status: #17 Interaction w/ FQ AQMs Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking Sebastian Moeller