IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Mon, 04 May 2020 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 1CA0B3A12DB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 ig8qEncmsA4j for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 A0C773A0B3D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id u15so81608ljd.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/xO9VQfELBbSV0ZoCUR7sm3NSkxsxRFgmTT5YDGng00=; b=V/SA5mWjXz7OpuLLfTMu3wEIyUlTobH14SoAG1a0QWGQbAE8lForljyNpwJSeAdD67 VwpMeAKeiyB/1KOygyGEd4SgFiaUtv5raJ8p76NDVES3KY4ymPsyGoU+GivrpP3aphAu ppGh1eIPm64KIPhA5Gg6zCsvBAYhwUcH0rlnsx+gVSLgQD7CuwtK1z2GpJTsBUFIMeth po21JOiNA+7LPiOjU6QAqJ8rjG6gI3OstNGRnikFX5MprGbtfO/JZ6psbU5mH38wdFAP 7u/Qm3Ez+BwNz9yFTevcctklAqGN67AgFjI4R6kAAjCx6Cdwi1mFt2wrlBXz+vIsC30F 2Kuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/xO9VQfELBbSV0ZoCUR7sm3NSkxsxRFgmTT5YDGng00=; b=DVNHSbFJEslt8Y7R5kuqShUMX8x1wvXpgBh50SSx85NzcQtb/oGBtRurfcD0WWcxG9 fZBLiWjv+RuEKpZmLUwxjzQWD2Kw4xcXVSHS3U/FX6z/ZkawCx508T8q+CMa4NR305o6 aQG0BjuxHEYWgv0wRKQ49FzWbJPYElcPIgEtG7zeHVRwEbxl3qDYiRfY3ZHe6i5+oeGX RiAgT5sD4GFcnKbzpfVc/uY+q0ZW6JAdyef+psUf4pNEG8VXvBa3vUDUroA2xq0+PBFw s8Pbl+z2xJb0FKK2ZP5S/KC1Cn6bhKmYmMJdHyEm9gVJ1u/EmhF+KxkPPWtAugcn2GQp rU7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYghj+5RoxqU/wOB6QOgIpBZw0T3C6Se4vIDH+tN9nAn00N8jvA 8g5T0vrwRNOtrVpd5JneTvyjC7PI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypK40yS6iuQ73qXJtr84bkARDzFKjsSUONQQ97w8lg16sw72pUyCBIYzo875vBACDGdwptMaqw==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a556:: with SMTP id e22mr107988ljn.130.1588635230747; Mon, 04 May 2020 16:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-235-192-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.235.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m23sm250890ljb.87.2020.05.04.16.33.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 May 2020 16:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 02:33:48 +0300
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DA2D1BF0-7B5F-45A6-802F-0B897343E2DD@gmail.com>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/fH3BiMsITCVQAKPPJ2UU4v3q-LU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
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, 04 May 2020 23:34:21 -0000

> In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org). 
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this question.
> 
> 	• I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.
> 	• I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
> 	• There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.

I support Option 2: using ECT(1) as an output signal.  I believe that the L4S design is unsafe.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email