Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?

Jonathan Morton <> Tue, 09 March 2021 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78853A19B2 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:46:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i54S0LdqzW7c for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A7833A19B1 for <>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q14so20015461ljp.4 for <>; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:46:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SeDoUcRV3eN69thlAaV/Uvfq30KDKYQTOdytEnZjIIM=; b=Hq9NQfN0jz5Jbblz2hRNbczRV11unX9pyF50gZjd5HtJXwRRcjNRm2plHFLSqY3Sfh U+KMr5RM+uqrJaZaIo/wE11B30YpkqO2OyE0FqPic3JdYmZTT6DLIAyU24cnpsFajYON 6PK323ntTjSEnHE9watTcm8eqMJcISpxPR8FyOkcj31kIgy7+3wTdHxlVDoOIi4wzHfv 5a36cvYpVzAKklLZ253Smxmqjt5S5KQp+79JgGWW0JhEkavz910WxyB/etXnw6r0nw8W 19pEMecNZ+SweZUjJCTokqgbNL5o7WVXT5gTsdgAMDT85nTxZHmW+XCv11efuh4zMiJS ZQxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SeDoUcRV3eN69thlAaV/Uvfq30KDKYQTOdytEnZjIIM=; b=rIsyMRHAsaucrJBTZDzNyHWHMTSOUXIJKViZpzLrg/dP0VObCCNgKSn+BCyh2Un9n1 XHsvej+oDpGRCfnYfYQkge/ZiRojDoiHDsZF5lmsCYto/zXaMnAhdPtYJGkqDS3e5uKJ u1ZCUO6MAHAGEHU+1hWe0q3hhPe2NhU7UIrtSjpDTuqUGgK9LZuFC3IPkk2lGl/3cbCP zLhs1M/sVEDP9hZl2pQ4bZhq8LAEFqz/Gqv9GZvPff4bhy0eqs3RF76Pz5T1ac4++GVM PtoT3YmKKHRImVWlYnlhvwtV4sQilkHHhnZgL5KwPJvdj4xCIcarSq3TTUJ1i51hL5EQ seQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531TwoVZA8t5N3Ah26RSQkHF+hBh4i3Bu1eJl8phl3ay9RGHVSKD U8qBdgtxTjLMfgvw1fd/DxY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+DAE+i1v2hbqJTq1qzeZ5VdQqZURCg60/itPpO+DQSkx2HvTPDbLszaLE1fxSJVosiwnmpg==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:810c:: with SMTP id d12mr16552635ljg.49.1615286787759; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x27sm1714587lfu.151.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 12:46:25 +0200
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Bob Briscoe <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:46:33 -0000

> On 9 Mar, 2021, at 3:19 am, Bob Briscoe <> wrote:
> In the survey of the L4S Prague Requirements, we got quite significant push-back from developers about our two requirements to fall back to Reno-Friendly (which the draft defines as a translation of 'TCP-Friendly' into transport-agnostic language, 'cos TCP isn't the only transport these days).
> Basically, people don't want to have to fall back to something as lame a Reno (apologies if that's disparaging, but I'm just the messenger).
> I was hoping people would interpret 'Reno-Friendly' liberally. But everyone takes Reno-Friendly to mean quite close to Reno behaviour - not surprising really, given the definition of TCP-Friendly in TFRC is roughly within 2x of Reno [RFC5348] (pasted at the end).
> What I'm looking for is a word that means "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control", which 
> RFC5033 allows for experimental congestion controls.

"Compliant with RFC-8511" should do the trick.

 - Jonathan Morton