IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 28 September 2020 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 1E6553A1375 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 w9A49ssotMlm for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 43A0F3A1373 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 12:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B2D50AF; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 21:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1601320883; bh=Xlq/LGcv6BVJx4ANAZ/H3RGwEzFmc5MxKgCVgS/QB4Q=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=AmDUOQJAFULuwVYL286bIBJaobbO551nxKNzcdigVOAiLeCps8etcGgOhUI4/jrir zsIrtYUVyqkIeHXiS+YgYmj9L6HB309/H2hs8dIgxhd3ueVxFMYW5QV6BqJnl3n399 awiXiF5mJ5A9tx65GXprG+tDBJ12do05JrZS8mF4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF73B9F; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 21:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 21:21:23 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <16196033-DC44-439B-82E1-7A3B3016692B@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009282110300.20021@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <5A76D272-0E62-478B-B09B-D6F17670E9F9@gmail.com> <16196033-DC44-439B-82E1-7A3B3016692B@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/n2Fg5TC-wykcTgTGjuefi23ep_4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:21:28 -0000

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020, Gorry (erg) wrote:

> At some point the working group needs to publish the spec. - This final 
> stage is taking longer than I would hope, and I do hope that will be 
> seeing a WGLC soon.

Do we actually?

I still haven't ruled out that we decide not to use these bits, for now, 
because we don't know enough how it will affect the entire Internet.

This means declaring failure and say "no" to both SCE and L4S until 
further notice.

I think both L4S and SCE has problems and I think proponents for both are 
glossing over some of these problems.

What happened to the L4S issue # 16 discussion? It seems to have died in 
June with no conclusion?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email