IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] L4S issue #23 on implementation status

"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Fri, 24 April 2020 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.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 7855E3A0B05 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 2zOvlMF_-25y for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 DCCCC3A0AF4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050093.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03NNxZND020396; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 01:03:36 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=95gFURonbe4c76OpL4byYtlSLyS8mTBCLJg1ZhHD98E=; b=EobAMQ6jjL02z6pRMgSX8nOq0itHUtlk5jby/+FEEfaY8FB8v+3y6lv0e/V5dccYfZu/ 5L9lMD7vW+24uqo9pyT1MiVzNUOIDkP6X4lGxV6lH2C070snUuGNRnGoh8gOGQ78txQ4 e8Jty22TYLUsBGVisEsaAXXYEyBStxIaSXr7MeLyAP6eItdvoXThDMQ9lcSdbNCiEmi3 rOaV0F/vOJCRNrP/+jGlVzAfXZfMJDG3YXYNZD/2pRFqF+YKTGQujHqKzoftp3KOBnLs 72Kxy+2W2OGOFn0H0MFimGSlIYFqsgWrEYJtZvWOILlUSYlV1YHCKwthHA+l0raRnMlQ EQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 30frtr03f2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 01:03:36 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 03O02VG8020187; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:03:35 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.53]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 30fvvwcac4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:03:34 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:03:29 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:03:30 -0400
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "pete@heistp.net" <pete@heistp.net>
Thread-Topic: L4S issue #23 on implementation status
Thread-Index: AQHWGcsnUCOsK0q2S06i6dP8YaBXMaiHMbWA
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:03:29 +0000
Message-ID: <885B4E5C-114A-402C-AE14-F90CD62C5597@akamai.com>
References: <d4280182-cb25-2e5a-6901-ee09aeaaa935@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <d4280182-cb25-2e5a-6901-ee09aeaaa935@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.80.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2012FDE6D510DA488EAE46B880E1C37F@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-23_19:2020-04-23, 2020-04-23 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2004230174
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-23_19:2020-04-23, 2020-04-23 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004230173
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/tlzymQSxWQRi_OXwyJmjCVWGIqM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] L4S issue #23 on implementation status
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, 24 Apr 2020 00:04:42 -0000

Hi Bob,

I have no objections to closing this.  I think adding the implementation
status section would be a useful addition and I encourage doing so, but
this is just a suggestion, not a blocking comment, and it's reasonable
to defer and still close the issue if you have higher priorities.

Best regards,
Jake

On 4/23/20, 4:58 PM, "Bob Briscoe" <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:

Jake, Pete, tsvwg,

I believe we've done all that was asked on this one.
It started out as an issue with the age of the Linux kernel under the 
implementation, which has now been fixed.

Please say if you disagree.
(Pete, thx, you've already said in the issue that you don't need it open 
any more.)

There is a question of whether these issues have to be resolved by 
writing something in one of the L4S drafts.
I don't think that was what the issue started out as, but Jake added it 
as a suggestion.

Nonetheless, for the record: The L4S drafts do already cite current 
implementations as relevant examples (not in a specific implementation 
considerations section as suggested by RFC7942, but where they are 
relevant in the text):
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-dualq-coupled-aqm     cites some AQM 
implementations, and a couple of CC implementations to use over them
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id                     cites a few of the 
end-system implementations
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch                        cites all the above,

These citations also include two Linux netdev papers about the reference 
implementations (DualPI2 & TCP Prague resp.)

Cheers



Bob



-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email