Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

[Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've followed the different discussions on the list on this topic and, IMHO,
it would be highly desirable to let the SCE proposal move forward in the WG.

The effects of the coexistence of different classes of applications in the
same traffic mix
seem not explored very well so far, and answers based on DSCP or coupled
queueing systems
with non predictable performance raised even more questions and worries.

Traffic isolation is an important topic in this whole discussion and I
noticed
different proposals have been recently proposed with announced running code
for testing such
as

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-cheap-nasty-queueing-01

It would make sense to know more about the different solutions in terms of
isolation
and see if they can provide predictable performance and at which
implementation
and operational cost.
Nonetheless, it would be important to also know what happens when isolation
is not in place.

IMHO, It would be difficult to understand why the WG would refuse fresh
energies
coming from people willing to do actual work on the topic.

I'm not doing any work on SCE but I'd be ready to spend some time to review
results and documents,
if that helps.

Regards
Luca
:wq


On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:50 PM Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello tsvwg list members,
>
> It is our intent to ask for adoption by the TSVWG of
> draft-morton-tsvwg-sce (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-tsvwg-sce-01) during the
> IETF/106 Singapore TSVWG session.
>
>
> The TSVWG chairs have provided the following guidelines for this adoption
> request:
>
> (1) The WG chairs want to see interest in SCE technology beyond the draft
> authors in order to adopt the SCE draft.   This will include surveying the
> room in Singapore (e.g., who has read this
>  draft?).
>
> (2) Coexistence of the L4S and SCE experiments is a concern that will need
> to be addressed by the WG if the SCE draft is adopted, and hence is in
> scope for discussion of this adoption request
> ..  In particular, absence of a coexistence plan (e.g., to deal with the
> different uses of the ECT(1) codepoint by L4S and SCE) is not an automatic
> barrier to WG adoption of the SCE draft.
>
> (3) The TCPM WG chairs have indicated TCPM WG willingness to consider
> complementary TCP work needed to complete SCE functionality.  In
> particular, draft-grimes-tcpm-tcpsce is likely to be inc
> luded in the TCPM Singapore agenda for Friday morning.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Rod Grimes
> [e-mail]
>
>