IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Mon, 04 May 2020 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 4B9093A1150 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 rLw7plOBD2Im for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CAE3A11AB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id 23so569412qkf.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 May 2020 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-language; bh=3PgJJfGUByBMWRKsVzP9C0fs7tlpd0dzpjChUO7tCLI=; b=k7UD2zC2ynY14KGV/Ot8mzbPTBqFAzVB6Jk4on8/K/nxL6GY1BSI0bOZSquuW7TvFC vGfZkdok7PSWUUfx3SU+jFyJ5fGwZnEhQ+ynwlNiPXKcNbnHd5bpD5lXE29nPSyc/arG 2tRmOSMSW+30OkrqlFLn9Qn10GVy89uG9o6mJ61vjOUPCfuyRVE/aqpyPd6kKYczvLlX XsCAzx3S+gZoLfMjSnSJh2X6HBx+vQR/TvtV0OFjW3lYeO+IPezeeQvwlVSuM10DZzqv H7424QIREXN06xMU4r9uvpEc1kgidvylDRNaiBymuBcD5RW9+HiE/XOPwuEn4hCIAB8Y 0qGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language; bh=3PgJJfGUByBMWRKsVzP9C0fs7tlpd0dzpjChUO7tCLI=; b=kgOXWIZ8tB+IVxsMlTaJlHB6YMHEqGmZnh7sfkfr1Ukk64qY3ClIQaJmerXtvTFETj sDU80Yf98uRys8YnjnnMzEB+tZPxw/dUSbbdMhrk2L73dOWFgtFkfUiR7gPVXIX3979E 1z9zPob8z+0qhg7eh4a28V3BCZZcTZ4jCbLg8dB5klGrp7xhWakamsgLcfkCCUIFyGEb YZt0IhcXCM/LBc71kt1rJ4mj5e+1PCuwu9FlUD8MVb5kEgZ/DsS97czUkladObcu1nHY lxW6ru5+iCq1fe8+eyug70HaQFaoSlfH8xOw0Oshu0TKow5v58XJRNGOuIvYWXPGaDqZ jXyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuakQuLJFWTLLGp22KYrwr46JKQNbC4E1/9lTMjTIaON+ukEk3XM xV/34LFiO7XgdEmyz8bnJqHBuBhy4K4byg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJzJS4+yn+I9CfBXPVEcGhOkhe2+14c35AhTYroWZMXdxte1pkQYMDuI42iMIIXkxRX/O5kBQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:b83:: with SMTP id k3mr502606qkh.412.1588616109364; Mon, 04 May 2020 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (user-12l31c7.cable.mindspring.com. [69.81.133.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c19sm11028765qtn.94.2020.05.04.11.15.08 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 May 2020 11:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 14:15:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F8FBA92A971C9A43D13E4426"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/rXWRHAyGOuu_qOGM3JkpK9whdS4>
Subject: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
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, 04 May 2020 18:15:16 -0000

**

*In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following 
viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a 
different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the 
list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org). *

*

If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting 
video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this 
question.


 1.

    I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is
    the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position
    does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that
    the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the
    current drafts.

 2.

    I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is
    consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the
    internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this
    group.

 3.

    There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a
    decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your
    response.


Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.

*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email