IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Gorry Fairhurst Individual thoughts on choosing whether/how to advance ECN work.

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 15 May 2020 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 DD0143A0899 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 dRXgAfk0Uu4y for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798BD3A08E3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=f6EwRgkOTNpmN7CspuvpM0r0chQRgg+wcFTLsSSQN68=; b=LG0H7GAjtPmh4Xu/aO0lyvQL4 FLmkwk0sl6fyD1tV2/Bfq1EzqAhJWFyy3ppUiq0s/bcTdNdTIR/JqC7am25JZVsK197k5sl5yyyzs PeO2ponJiLORp9VmJCAuV3eXqk5nG0drb9fizArAythHNrY6aUGnrpEr5ALHzxOVEF4xIbYNowV+k JBVpUYwiHQwoL9UjmjevV61jClOO73z4xm+vvgzFJJa+CLMXQgGugj0dRXr73YGsH0IPx4cmsFn7c sUBBmZiWgDvsZtHqRCuDarzGx6pjNYQf16OdsH6CWHXTVTy1fB5593AaOez6ufpBAO7mGj0ue1VXS iCJi9BjCg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:53937 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jZgLe-000Dww-OD; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:50:27 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A742766-6B94-4269-8C50-144410206BE5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <3CD6E65D-3D28-49E3-B77C-4C3CCC155BA4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:50:21 -0700
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <EAA264BA-E9A5-4E1B-A934-6104A0976DF9@strayalpha.com>
References: <dbc71da6-70f1-7369-1d2d-f08fb3b08b69@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <999D213E-D708-4189-990E-1801F8C6E814@strayalpha.com> <3CD6E65D-3D28-49E3-B77C-4C3CCC155BA4@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ktzRLMGYILH03F8zP--FmF8Za50>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Gorry Fairhurst Individual thoughts on choosing whether/how to advance ECN work.
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 19:50:33 -0000

I guess it might be useful to highlight the following parts of my question:

> On May 15, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 15 May, 2020, at 7:49 pm, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I also haven’t quite seen a brief summary of the utility of these bits as a signal in either direction (endpoint to net; net to endpoint) given the assumption that “everybody lies”.

Is there a brief summary of what you wrote?

I.e., in 1-2 short sentences each:

>> 
>> IMO, lying is part of why DSCPs are useful only where either redundantly validated on network ingress or inside managed networks.
>> 
>> So my questions - not really experiments (as per one of the options) are:
>> 
>> 	- assuming endpoints lie and/or network nodes lie (either by what they indicate or what they rewrite), are either of these options still safe?
>> 
>> 	- assuming everybody lies (as above), are either of these options still useful? (i.e., more than just safe)
>> 
>> If not - and partly based on Gorry’s observation above, my inclination is not to define these bits for such uses at all.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email