Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021

Jonathan Morton <> Thu, 25 March 2021 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27F33A215E for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NV_s5ckMQb7w for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3707C3A2164 for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u9so3095417ljd.11 for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
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=KhWlPXTKf694UnzKQXApDWc3pHTx6CjdD0lBMZiQ/CU=; b=sxrQuipejcRXGefv7XhXUDZHCHncV88dctngkQDi1lDS2oTXzTpeVs2mGLM5ClOFqC F5vExvJdO2vM4aN61vV161sUIwZp0PB9utmU3NtIH9SjaDY7M61TW5nHSeFBZ3TcHYpK qL5LrruWro7lLNjRN5AY8ZNBIXzJyHJtm0yn3qP2fHEEIHAOvUJR/CSnuuxSL2PfBXV/ OKlcp91sOp+fPQPpKoBm/IWmOY1ViR3lJ+bGeZPqDdDnFlU48iU6KUD1Lus1TBtYF1eG EEqy6ytSqCDGfs2sp01Nx0LKYaHRiIw3kTx43VOSpjWkhSdihIMbYxmvm5Nc/cGmwuU8 V7ZA==
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=KhWlPXTKf694UnzKQXApDWc3pHTx6CjdD0lBMZiQ/CU=; b=q38pXhPCpizBVfa5HCGarQ/tIotANRbl7GyLDwD9oWWROcetUt+sZNIJo8Gxw8ZoDx SMQzI5mzAgp+8os1IejME7a3FpgC1/fpyESNJ3YuuBJTjAQvixO7wBAHP2gyvbnySYwl qpT/yptPnefkYIWNba9EmUFAofznm4jLQ/iFqcH3dl/SNCOavCaig+EoFn931A8hdwnJ 7rZp065vzAcTwsWD7ZYQ+gyabo/J1D9l/rogiwJg8FePk+qvGhBTijqzPUKfb2/yBQ16 WOj8hGt/tciBsjrWQ2L59rGzk1kYpGzWqGGYOMDiy9ufW/Y73pnZpycHzNI+KMu/MEn3 3y/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532oxFAEIk1M6jRFfYn6FLf4fwpVZ0+Eh1Kh+EclYfti8tDNFiHk KG3EVTyOTke/I+Tta4P4sEA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHZPxLP+QTmARYcOayiksY5krRLPd75s+9FvJblMsyfqbyg7a79lnRPqgysrM9c6ER1f49DA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8053:: with SMTP id p19mr5675185ljg.89.1616679291881; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g24sm552301lfv.257.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:34:50 +0200
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Adoption call for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops - to conclude 24th March 2021
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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:35:37 -0000

> On 25 Mar, 2021, at 3:08 pm, Ingemar Johansson S <> wrote:
> One reflection around all this is that it really does not matter how many
> warning signs you put, information may still not reach the intended
> audience. 

Which, I think, just confirms that we have to consider what happens to operators and users who don't receive or act on that information.  How serious is the problem that is likely to result, how many people is it likely to affect, and are those people reasonably likely to be able to troubleshoot the problem and apply a suitable remedy?  Hence why I highlighted the principles of risk analysis in my talk.

That in turn is why it's much easier to standardise and deploy protocols that explicitly try to fit in with existing deployed specifications.  In that case, the answers to those questions are benign, and the protocol can be deployed without too much in the way of special safeguards - often, just an agreement to shut down experimental deployments if they prove to cause unexpected problems.

Unfortunately, the answers where L4S are concerned are *not* benign, because it is not designed to interoperate with a certain class of existing deployed infrastructure.  It therefore requires much more robust precautions surrounding any deployment - precautions which l4s-ops does not presently describe.

 - Jonathan Morton