IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID

Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> Sat, 08 May 2021 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <moeller0@gmx.de>
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 4CEDA3A0B13 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.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 8Oe1Nxri24RL for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 11:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 58F9A3A0B02 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 May 2021 11:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1620497071; bh=S5EO4UKi/eRam+Z1udMjRwNSmLhbC3yKZ1bc5JJahCk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=XdQvn7TRn83WeOdyE8z/8+OemJvGDQw4nY4Pn9JUGv+8UxcPkU7+tyO8/gaxd2wTE FiHbhhw48TN6GuXXIP74ZE6fnACTYFetZ22a655rYvbA9pW0RvXLf72MmoW1eP4q/I DNpHypYJN2u92q/vKp8/BuStU7x+mTgsXd2Q5b9g=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.8.244.85]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MV63q-1m49iy3jiY-00S4O1; Sat, 08 May 2021 20:04:30 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <55CCC0EF-87EF-4EA2-B16E-16127248EF08@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 20:04:27 +0200
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E8FCE978-6555-4E37-8F0D-F0D78258E349@gmx.de>
References: <CACL_3VHaheyR=4GKL4BNYprXxEubMkA49WQKQ3uzn=WZVgYusg@mail.gmail.com> <55CCC0EF-87EF-4EA2-B16E-16127248EF08@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.20)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:YuSr0PNC8eWOo5QwElCpnoS0CycrZWti5mdr8D/CTLuFxa6GkBO l3FBWEpmBqsTX3N51ndTXGZzJtBCZBD24l8nbppBHq2V4QH1QMtqyXSaxCxckTaWqIJWa1s qLljRyS8U57mW9n7kQuavsu427RBoSJAFi/lhppcobeLnpQkUhGHQB8/JwlV0lbCfOZwL2h 03r7NGLVaSgzFm5tmwJaw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:gfZoVyin4I4=:LJLkP62jq6qLAROr0o32uN OktTDZrIfwDBXBxv+YsPcVhH4oi57kVvs8+h5Kdqlmsi9/dqicewoIuj4YZOn6dEixhS6cBP9 tW1uhjJ5bN3DfDvg8rcne8AU6ySRpmPlZzdTuoazHll6TXwM4yhtV8Th+55Qx3knCVNTSY7DP 8qM1bMVtE27vUL9DWBTKa1PQU0mYzEQexGVEZAU0jBmgNGBcPFVH8ymqLSQi8x5G0ss4cHxdH WIxId+b3ix1HaRfdUTUEt74PxTA4CBulkpuiozvLh7n9/PGb732CgHpayVaq7j6oZv5WujkGI +90ELS3i7HZu1Xs124e75N3jiB/6nviUxq1eMvBOPinVb1Vip97V1P96TNTW3b27HyXqH22rf Zar6aY+emW1UEiS56Y0xVO/Sszx1JMw/2N/ZF5OPO6PV7cYynsYrIdm6aUqhFaYVttrDiCvVn aTykBZtkURsWhO7l3mw6i3T9Rp+uOSoEe606miP7U4UauMXhvtdnWis2Z3t2nhyrv4AKXWvqN PgPMxZwHi0nH4PQ1+7jYs/T4aY0JZqon/W/hkiSsC59pn79Sd4xw72841q2pHbpwjSgGnEiH6 PZu2B1xXQAEjNzAZbWWohxMP+dEGEBZZmgptQrVDfuPDufR7/0kpbRpk3CNWfhcTz5VUDJTSl cOUZ/zRb0FLcsllRpzFoFkXYgupAQS82+9igjiO0HGkokNYXjcoIKtDRIcrqhMCIsPMjMMVXw h18b1+abeSu4bsSTwQF43zEZG76bMJZ51L0h737WljVW7FC/X9C3BDCalDFxfl6rxAmr4qNTZ CTGQxHRG91DcAED0HOkO7tBayeqaBC314TmLR4Z26IhdxMiqJIYFa+bPqqcRVbjJPdbQaHAgP MDsMNIuitLJ6HOU2CRN6kVmhCWF55i+XBLc769fC9vNwFvwULW006AMInXhyd2f7OA+IRmOG6 B/69tru5g+Q/RMheWGxpf1Ec/zYWg0jS+ykLJ0sX3VipKBMVHFIWtBTtq4FG3muaf2ld4qUu3 aKbiAfbQGKvBIc08yHBEIWolbAnlg3t3BveE4yscI+eS0vAYzoFP4MOJPQr9l3yrurLIHxeZ8 nIFNZAqyR4hix4ILEgqfjcDWpOFs/Q1aqXGOM1/6U8H55ngnAuSciFRcelVSSMU8Raj4r6Uw1 oY+3ooAMdf3CDks5oUsPUwV9RlmY4SK+1qcRehPDbJFvyOfFuIorwPrnlcoYK3qgTGhgA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/fqat8qi7L0mwo7hwoGiuH63GIU4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID
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, 08 May 2021 18:04:43 -0000

Hi Gorry,

see below.

> On May 8, 2021, at 19:15, Gorry (erg) <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> See below 
> 
>> On 8 May 2021, at 16:15, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:22 PM Gorry Fairhurst  wrote:
>> [GF] You seem to keep arguing in a direction that would result in 
>> obsoleting RFC3168 before we progress L4S, but I don't agree this 
>> ordering is needed. The proposal I see is that the deployment takes 
>> place and then the IETF has the option to decide what happens next.
>> 
>> Seeing the word ***deployment*** instead of the word ***experiment***
>> in the last sentence above,  I have to agree with Sebastian on this point.
>> 
>> Mike Heard  
> 
> Well, I think that the purpose of an EXP RFC is to allow initial deployment, and to gain useful experience and then to understand any changes that are  needed to the Spec.
> 
> Nobody needs a RFC to do an experiment within their own controlled network.

	[SM] So we are we contemplating to letting L4S onto the wider internet without any robust containment mechanism, sice L4S has not even been demonstrated to be safe and functional in such a "controlled experiment"?

> Anyway, this is what I will call  the “alternate ECN semantics RFC” already allows using a private DSCP.

	[SM] Maybe this should be change to make such testing a MUST...

> 
> I also know that In many cases, EXP specs do not result in any useful deployment, and that also is a risk.

	[SM] In the L4S case that is almost guaranteed, it already does not work robustly and reliably under lab conditions... so why are we expecting it to fare any better under real life conditions? And that is fact not opinion, its failure modes are demonstrated in Pete's data...

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Gorry
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email