Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#1: ABE)

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

From: Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 7:00 AM
To: Bob Briscoe
Cc: Black, David; <[e-mail]> Fairhurst; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#1: ABE)


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]



On May 14, 2021, at 12:21 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Michael,
On 14/05/2021 11:07, Michael Welzl wrote:
Hi,

A comment below:


On May 14, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

David, [Pls ignore previous email - had a better idea - see replacement text below]

A relevant place to refer to ABE is in S.1.3:

CURRENT:

   This document is intended for experimental status, so it does not

   update any standards track RFCs.  Therefore it depends on [RFC8311 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8311__;!!LpKI!wpysl1bDzmAB29BK4FM7tv328JmHwJ198YqY8zYiKE2IQARLOe6WKjXdK6gZfe8E$>],

   which is a standards track specification that:



   o  updates the ECN proposed standard [RFC3168 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3168__;!!LpKI!wpysl1bDzmAB29BK4FM7tv328JmHwJ198YqY8zYiKE2IQARLOe6WKjXdK8LqHmSA$>] to allow experimental

      track RFCs to relax the requirement that an ECN mark must be

      equivalent to a drop (when the network applies markings and/or

      when the sender responds to them);

PROPOSED to append:
     For instance, an experimental ABE sender [RFC8511] responds less to ECN marks than to drops.
     For instance, this permits an ABE sender [RFC8511] to experiment with responding less to ECN marks than to drops.

I disagree with “experiment with”. The specification is experimental, but this doesn’t entail that a sender would “experiment with responding less” - this sounds as if ABE would just specify that a reduced back-off is something cool to experiment with, and an ABE sender would then try this or that backoff, depending on their liking. That’s a misrepresentation.

Suggestion:
     For instance, this permits an ABE sender [RFC8511] to respond less to ECN marks than to drops.
I find it unnecessary to stress “experiment” again in this sentence because it describes an example of “updating the ECN proposed … to allow experimental track RFCs to … “ - i.e., it’s very clear from the context here that ABE is experimental.

[BB] I am being asked to stress the status of experimental drafts.
I agree with your point about "experiment with" tho, so I'll take a middle line:

    in the ABE experiment [RFC8511] this permits a sender to respond less to ECN marks than to drops

This works for me. Thanks.

Cheers,
Michael
[David>] Works for me also, Thanks, --David