IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops-02.txt proposa for additional sections

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Fri, 16 April 2021 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@gmail.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 EBC3C3A371E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.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 GkGb2dCrxPbr for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 160CC3A3724 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id a25so19317044ljm.11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LIgd7LJ8eoh4g9lXg/y4eOkK6xZ8kWtyUjeulCsMan0=; b=upQiDfFJE+KTGjiipDR1g4G4YwMT4YSxf7d8MgQDUQMALZa4aZ3MkmhXiCfkyUJcJZ 2HajEm/Tx+W6rjspbe4jQpWEP6vRanqps0dcqwDP1Pv+f/2ATYrezq7IM7fjC+OSYU02 scwB57/6T0s5EpsPQNfxj+90c7OxqXREbZwMLct/NNGVbhLiyTYIudpdlNAsVKE+tY+z bO2cUrhuDbHqM3o5COKMrhKAJZNauuwrw26AMxNWOgeEoDQEMGR4m05wlyBonUakIwj7 BQ3JVzRfFlTPHCTflDVzNHqVh3C6t8eUr521tiFn8T9vt+K+KBxY3jIqJHWYXU8bTm8U nJHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LIgd7LJ8eoh4g9lXg/y4eOkK6xZ8kWtyUjeulCsMan0=; b=IGmWffBojrn/vhvRW/TTG01IzEBEzxAvltII7bpXB98REksUGXoRJ1pu8Q8P9HVHIF OnAEh8yyoAYDi6hjLKZg0L4i6fvXTVWV8GmAIRUuy3GXAYND+O2O24IAQXwNgAd9q3IH xAVl+IVhkfBEoXx77QgVCiv0td1cyN6LxOW8wETJEAaqLceR/RYSOW6Niv1rGwxPNrkB jaIOa6uD1gScHxEZW/NojYGOGQizZ4ospX0KbagJkCyYxr8DtMxes5cY/SWpj5A2M7yC NS4scIInQjF+y8ey4o/hQiScZb//qGCWqZ1Mp+LjB4jZ2YI5X0T+EbUEPtnW/d5LaybV 1Y+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YwBGt4I7UQAxzhzvQtqJlEqlQsmu9ZLKjyRfiWCyApUBo4Ak9 xzuMdE5gl+NJl8LKlOMYjEU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxN3C6qijtuWvf7qpX8pgGqEWhRPLCWA9r8/xoNeKeJlEdSMTry82SMWGuL0dkVLwFEM9B0MA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8794:: with SMTP id n20mr3705457lji.401.1618609412698; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (178-55-25-11.bb.dnainternet.fi. [178.55.25.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm1100210lfc.82.2021.04.16.14.43.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2BD1FC5-673F-4C29-8FFE-16CA367F388A@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:43:30 +0300
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0FACABE-31F3-4642-81F7-63878C7F579C@gmail.com>
References: <C2BD1FC5-673F-4C29-8FFE-16CA367F388A@gmx.de>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/tmKf_7IhAyV5Z5VCfMk9zZLPQh8>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops-02.txt proposa for additional sections
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, 16 Apr 2021 21:43:50 -0000

> On 16 Apr, 2021, at 11:57 pm, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> I am sure that this is not going to be complete and that there will be differing opinions on these sections, but I believe something similar in scope should be added.

One measure that should seriously be considered is placing an explicit, coordinated sunset date in each implementation, after which the implementation MUST assume that the experiment has concluded unsuccessfully and L4S semantics are no longer permitted on the wire.  This sunset date can be extended if a longer experiment is deemed desirable, by deploying revised implementations to all appropriate nodes.

The advantage of this approach is that *if* the experiment is unsuccessful, there is no long tail of deployed implementations that might inadvertently interfere with future experiments using the same fields and codepoints.  Such new experiments can begin at least as soon as the last sunset date actually deployed.  Given the scarcity of available codepoints in the ECN field, and the poor performance of L4S in lab tests to date, I think this is a prudent precaution to take.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email