Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction

Luca Muscariello <muscariello@ieee.org> Wed, 05 February 2020 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <muscariello@ieee.org>
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 3827412008C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:12:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 1vJ6RPdqbD_S for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (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 0D89D12004E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id a9so2965592wmj.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:12:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+FLLaFVnNsL2f3UJuRPkYZIBIBrioLycZWJaAOMQaDE=; b=dj6JEtQAZ0xzkvOqYjduojdC//Q39lg1oSPZLbnWRA8Ln/vHnPuagjvmQSNGDBPo8f d6GTjq6niiklojN9/tN1K9WQsBrzrSd3bYxGqMbQJw6j0nqgunnQ/SZG5NDiD45nN0UG P7rrfr+O0ZdhVpsvzj3rsC/0P58dd9ESxvHN8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+FLLaFVnNsL2f3UJuRPkYZIBIBrioLycZWJaAOMQaDE=; b=CaRE3ORetkWqFwGxg0hUpoWdyx5TVm9mclhDbKOHpxcdKT7KB1l+con95n/4HjJQHH /YRdB2ETNchQz0NAexaTDE7FXicRPlueZAL7QaRJCY2aN8RmIAtZuy3KyNPVuDf6jD3d vuwLE6eVzNoXUnyCapReLxWfnDah6PqC9ZPqAcl8dRYkgFVq9G8h3OIBc9pZh/khf+No KjFs+9oN5aAYKtaao77O/Gze1R9HtcZbIKZaV7q3BQlH5ZvkKfG/Q14VaX5tm6RaonwN mg2/Uhxgwm7z5Ki6/Om9z6TuTsJ6RkU8jtUpL1Q61D9/u5suDzjvXVC4mjnw8q9k3iLm 3hVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRU6sfu/fmY8ASyBtSVYSmCWm23bgsg1szY9nojoOKo8xl7yAm w4OX+6S63SrI89WFlGehLkaAKv6km+0zYcGwDYf69VppuQ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyG+uppWJqmFF7Mv/FCDq+3RfNX7UlB667Fg0TXVzsusnkgCiCh98KKS02Us+MhpNX8IVeCvdrtg6oPFbaJwAo=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6408:: with SMTP id y8mr5974949wmb.130.1580911973567; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:12:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <862c1335-1ca7-d82c-3586-8753a18533c0@mti-systems.com> <3E66D0DC-5B53-4F05-BEA4-07AC83DEE18E@gmail.com> <3fadcc65-5d51-9c05-bda5-16b18336f8df@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <3fadcc65-5d51-9c05-bda5-16b18336f8df@mti-systems.com>
From: Luca Muscariello <muscariello@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 15:12:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH8sseR_V=+POgmUNChFgs=cMNLac9Yg_bpdD2S=6ZObEE8SwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009b3bf6059dd4c079"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sV7-ZjE3NFPkZ3tmnJ_A-4O5Qv4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:12:57 -0000

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:00 PM Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> On 2/4/2020 9:56 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >> On 4 Feb, 2020, at 5:40 pm, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like we have mostly converged on the L4S issue tracker entry
> for FQ interaction:
> >>
> >> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/17
> >>
> >> Greg's last comment there sums it up well, I think.  Based on the
> threads and meeting notes, I'm not sure if anything specific needs to be
> done to the L4S drafts, other than making sure that the TCP Prague
> discussion there reflects what the testing has revealed is important to be
> done.
> >>
> >> So, I think when the drafts are updated, we will be able to close this
> issue.  Please correct if this is wrong.
> > I have just added https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/17#comment:10
> to reflect my thoughts on this issue.
>
> Thanks Jonathan; I have a quick follow-up question to make sure it's
> clear for the editors what their next steps should be.
>
> Is it sufficient if they're adding an open issues / future work section
> to list this as an area for potential research and improvement with the
> experimental L4S deployments and transports being created for it based
> on TCP Prague requirements?
>

Reading the discussion on the issue tracker I'm unable to understand
if the issue is fixed or there is a fundamental problem that can
happen in the wild. It looks like closely related to issue #16
with mitigation in presence of FQ.

Luca