Re: [tsvwg] ECN as a classifier (was: L4S vs SCE)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 31 December 2019 17:42 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 9F84F120043; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (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 9dEfYhqW0TnJ; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (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 062E7120019; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id y19so27360163lfl.9; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:32 -0800 (PST)
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=JS5zZ1o8VzSJGp8ur0eUu2W8wFXqEUh77I40NLKDFWQ=; b=cF/50ozoK2WNKbJZ2K7OzMjj686CDsnaIoUAhZgH+CUkXPNzrL1E7R6Sofz3f0BIsz mRrHNEdI6SikjLmnbvrQZOL++dTgSdHTHrV0XhUfNKNlExoDBdFfqRbO0EIR31XEh6jo CeUM7G3I/UQ7m54zV7ap+RGsIO0VOCVdNxINluN4Ntq7H00kAq27fPj0P94fAEIZxj5/ k+SNzWKuyE8IaoHlKpf+EnXBNPMIECg5R93o7343NiYf5If6ZQyna+bc8Zp7dVW87YNl Qku/5ntHxuW3BqCvUzo1Mj9CGE3CIoIf6b07uL72r1TiAFIFU62R0UCYHcfZeSEn51lh /TnA==
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=JS5zZ1o8VzSJGp8ur0eUu2W8wFXqEUh77I40NLKDFWQ=; b=MiiVC6vnXRzp8PS9CvPMEPjrV7mYU5RS28ef4iIZ9696D/PbaMZlO2cOLbgkofAQux K8EdsrZm5F6DLgzJAl0ptvIIeuUMvii3IvJT187MhkhPUHR3pH4eKbFr/tyk8LZGu3Vz MkDjNixTCCidzT7TctaOMxzhjihThXD9+YS3a3fxdMylRLviZ3y9OWsRVXKAZSdFJd3i yab1wuih7BFKpXO8Zx1zxjBwNkxPIqYq6+yDQZv8GmbmpQFBBiXEHYqF1uoZ/3bcoSJk uZBS+vB/uCUrnOMBEPtsNtkUdIwBYybCUZjkOy6zoRl+XSxDrtg3481B2LM01Hu6SJ6l 0JZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXLA++FirbLzajFaUyMVNzazo/TeTBclaSN0wD8w8V0s8vSzXA 5kYI5WoiylWhLT3pBSdqFE0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnIjMSUZloj4SvfTgz/rN5ljQfvlyEWFjgWVNmZKZutaH8AiPo2mbss/b/86MWq8tRwJKzMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:be93:: with SMTP id o141mr44513181lff.181.1577814151321; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-229-102-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.229.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d20sm20329425lfm.32.2019.12.31.09.42.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fff2c49-8519-2a40-8e6c-67a9de9b722c@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:42:29 +0200
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6D85F28B-B8A7-46F9-A9E3-8372A19F7B7C@gmail.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB44250F3C4E6A744DDCC3DAFCC24C0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <ad7b763e-b3dd-36cf-a9c5-7de99476babb@mti-systems.com> <12ED7632-5E3E-4EB9-B65E-8A8324067C9A@akamai.com> <5DD4BB25.3060700@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5658232C-07D5-4C89-B16A-58A928332FC6@gmx.de> <HE1PR07MB4425D989D4A266C73331FFA5C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAJU8_nUK5cZLFE-0UBzf0a7T0hC7C+CpCsUy_+ZU_p4oxW9BmQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB442560D0715BC921AB9B7FE3C24F0@HE1PR07MB4425.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM4PR07MB345968E8C665304DFBD5B11FB94F0@AM4PR07MB3459.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <228d061d-f25e-b350-4a6e-2aea827a590c@kit.edu> <e5a7ed0e-90cb-10a9-c55f-0ba8d2144ecd@bobbriscoe.net> <1ed5e25f-d105-8866-99fb-5fce181bbbbe@kit.edu> <5d36ceb0-d03f-6fee-c7ea-e803fbfa606f@bobbriscoe.net> <151fd71f-bdc5-a140-104f-e924a2b7dc16@kit.edu> <7fff2c49-8519-2a40-8e6c-67a9de9b722c@bobbriscoe.net>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/iMxfBYHIK-bg9pWVY3wq0OhGyLA>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] ECN as a classifier (was: L4S vs SCE)
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: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:42:35 -0000

> On 31 Dec, 2019, at 6:55 pm, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
> 
> However, the original RFC3168 ECN architecture (that is incompatible with SCE) remains and will remain more widely supported in the Internet, probably for decades. Indeed, even today, the RFCs to make that change to all encapsulations (not just IP-in-IP tunnels) are not past the WG stage yet.
> 
> Tunnels and encapsulations are everywhere. Jonathan M says it doesn't matter if the SCE signal gets black-holed in tunnels and encapsulations.

It's not that it doesn't matter at all - erasing the SCE signal would degrade the behaviour to RFC-3168 standard.  But that's an acceptable fallback position which allows for incremental deployment, even before all the tunnels are upgraded to the new standard.

Thus the existing RFC-3168 compliant architecture is *not* incompatible with SCE as you claim.  So please don't claim that, when it isn't true.

 - Jonathan Morton