Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 D5CCA3A09DF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:35:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 u1yExFu1MXxK for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (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 7B1CD3A09D7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id v123so6015983vsv.9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 18:35:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pX2tQFBe01Uj0OMWajXYPV5Ds0aB6qYuaEE0g782erk=; b=mC9dGWIn4IN2P3xArkBGzJu9+T54Rj0XKTO8eiZ0sEzzflwYCdOuK0ldwMesxt58FR MPSr9kzekoYKYwbjGrJE9usQ1zlK5j8pDRmwpucEwoH8uX3F5+vrz3NLO087vMenhB/S ZyHB2Oxwr6LsOtNMXwor7IUQq+Hspbaj6TWURivn0iBs+rVAElmHrVhSaCh5FEg/jFot aHXzb+dLme3B1+fgZ/o8aYyJT8ljKG0MYG9kV6Tn6WhLhSAfGAGW2jecCImR5G5P9nY7 JqzhqVaNF7UdwcZv11uIdlNSJbeO1cusui0rgKrhHgrtLt3CLcLCh3xGFVjXGtI+O05I Upqg==
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=pX2tQFBe01Uj0OMWajXYPV5Ds0aB6qYuaEE0g782erk=; b=lHqcB9NUWiUyEyz/Yue34eHvHmqutODYaPkHZA0pa4z9LSzGKnmfHfu49SlAGR589A 86TYVbGWA0nNpdBodf7OkR+HBwIQ5b3YzL46HbmDjVtGmxNHwZe5RTyMzTGA89IFBMwC 8PJV2m3zLpdbJwYnWGJWJTAmEu5OwHxZqNEJcTSC3m/g56nmbOF4K3MVMGU/QIEM4OnX b6ZRw1Mevvg72ZyrsIVaNlHaoBSVndtK1B/CXD0imdf1cM4EEmkbTUmoOIEm3nMjbubx iALns/6Nmlrmu+CZvpcvCCoNV+wQ3lCgGbaqZdNbt4m9NOazTttV5xiwPp/oXr3TgOlf qYNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532p91ut9O8xmXt7OLAgYYG4GfLPQFOVS07iWQlKggi2bbygN6So yxRvii1pp7tORrPG7U9er3GVFf8sZmvc+F1mubxU7kJakHA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHxDJ2kp4Ey0EKAKMqtkKtjnP4854USIMS7o6ZqJVNoMAyM6dT0WBKPF8+a5cwpHCWiNHXvTjFG3AMuYM7dYA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:302b:: with SMTP id v11mr1080377vsa.8.1615257343299; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 18:35:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9d807812-78a7-6066-5c5f-6f2b02507439@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <9d807812-78a7-6066-5c5f-6f2b02507439@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:35:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQykGJNo3wF7pr4_OYxtzQAaN_A3y6trOQO3T2B8bWiWG+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b794705bd11680f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/spczSBAMAI8z_DCpxlgMWhhADQ4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 02:35:47 -0000

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 8:19 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:

> tsvwg-ers,
>
> In the survey of the L4S Prague Requirements, we got quite significant
> push-back from developers about our two requirements to fall back to
> Reno-Friendly (which the draft defines as a translation of 'TCP-Friendly'
> into transport-agnostic language, 'cos TCP isn't the only transport these
> days).
>
> Basically, people don't want to have to fall back to something as lame a
> Reno (apologies if that's disparaging, but I'm just the messenger).
>
> I was hoping people would interpret 'Reno-Friendly' liberally. But
> everyone takes Reno-Friendly to mean quite close to Reno behaviour - not
> surprising really, given the definition of TCP-Friendly in TFRC is roughly
> within 2x of Reno [RFC5348] (pasted at the end).
>
> What I'm looking for is a word that means "does not have a significantly
> negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control", which
> RFC5033 allows for experimental congestion controls.
>


Reno-considerate?

Reno-accommodating?

neal