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

Anna Brunström <anna.brunstrom@kau.se> Mon, 18 May 2020 22:03 UTC

From: Anna Brunström <anna.brunstrom@kau.se>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
Thread-Index: AdYiR5HJvW/9BAylSICGz300RD4M9wLBorcQ
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 22:03:20 +0000
Message-ID: <0ef652f9b46540be8f0932dce7e6ad58@kau.se>
References: <HE1PR07MB3131400D823BD0CC3190B852C2A60@HE1PR07MB3131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB3131400D823BD0CC3190B852C2A60@HE1PR07MB3131.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, sv-SE
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/gfVQbOgCF8gOb_NTCKU6J-LhI1o>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
Precedence: list

Hi,

As the question is phrased I support option 1, but with some flavour of option 3.

I believe ECT(1) has greater potential as an input signal to the network than as an output signal, but I believe more work and testing is needed to understand how much of this potential we may be able to realize in different real network scenarios.  

Best Regards,
Anna

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 14:15:07 -0400
> From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
> To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
> Message-ID: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> 
> **
> 
> *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.
> 
> 
>  1.
> 
>     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.
> 
>  2.
> 
>     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.
> 
>  3.
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
> *

[tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ingemar Johansson S
Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Anna Brunström