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 16:49 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 EF2B63A0F87 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:49:20 -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 ZYMs_-ApUrDg for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:49:19 -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 DB1F43A0EEF for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:49:19 -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=NvB7rEeIYt9LjZyuMJNldiGRY+etLtW+uoQr9wodd5E=; b=Wxs43O7Go2Btb7G0xrUu9v3GT HdDdlgWTIyO75DmQMONIxzig5V+ZHsg17szo2E93HhkClEtfYs70532UTZ2DM7U9qiEpfVUW1zZ06 Bq6iryE0o1GwOo7WOLLLaVYadSpzON1tY0IiEdUn2IOhibPb+5bV8FPl9oYgqec41nhsRldmSzqV9 DG2aOi0hm6VdvmC1E7G/H1qFc02c0jMQHUMY5tdSOlO/XHA8/NXMO88Kdu4okqxjqvXLG6wuVkBPF 2Vr5WNdQayyaiucF9NIcs4WYy2EvrVkNFcgZm4zbF/Janm8MRZQuJ9vEu7jJf/zf/hhYbT5X7I96L vYW2wr0EQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:52476 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 1jZdWJ-000lEz-Nd; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:49:16 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA825142-0540-4233-84F6-D3BCA8A16166"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <dbc71da6-70f1-7369-1d2d-f08fb3b08b69@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 09:49:10 -0700
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <999D213E-D708-4189-990E-1801F8C6E814@strayalpha.com>
References: <dbc71da6-70f1-7369-1d2d-f08fb3b08b69@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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/p-o4vkxnZXa4q2mK1bbA0PWWO2I>
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 16:49:21 -0000

Hi, all,

> On May 15, 2020, at 7:54 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Alas, I don’t see how we can do all using just the current ECN field, and that’s why I say we have a shortage of bits.

I agree with Gorry on the point above.

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”.

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.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email