Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Wed, 06 November 2019 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 507D1120BC0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:23:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 JIseWOBonR0z; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B7E7120B96; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 23:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E9A25A20; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:23:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1573025008; bh=uoug4D41r6XBgSCeR6qKZuzNZQeILinZN0ZvgR1Cg2U=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K2LW0fc0wiY70NDYnX6tBLOnKx+NoinxDqIEhl3M4557ddOFa74GRIsIFYOWyBlYX JhOwk5IkXtx5SKNQI9XpganvJBiN7enLIAZ6JiA9QkQiEE/JOq6+6fJqXppfC20OO5 K02CuwrAqlsgnehChB2HE6+55EKHeCB06tUFPaWU=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GTUx0uod8g9R; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:23:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:23:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.61]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:23:25 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
CC: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
Thread-Index: AQHVUALBEtXgqT1yKUqbs6+qKMgfv6cI1m+NgHLuuYCAACE53v//8bUAgAASJQ6AAdWZAIAAhk2s
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:23:24 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE531@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de> <201911041917.xA4JH2nX002064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4DE88E@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>, <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <7f1aa4ae-05d6-b07c-50b0-ab899c5c30b7@bobbriscoe.net>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D4E4829rznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/u1qRteRY2FV_KVsLstN3rnbWnlE>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [tcpm] L4S status tracking
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, 06 Nov 2019 07:23:33 -0000

Bob,

I am not convinced by any of your statements.

There are more than 500.000 hits in Google for „non-iPhone“ and I see many that are not about fakes.

Certainly, I don’t insist in the term „non-L4S“. This is just an example. I already proposed „non-L4S-enabled“ as well. I fail to understand how „non-L4S-enabled TCP“ could be confused with „non-L4S traffic“. But, as outlined below, anyway there are other solutions.

Also, I don’t object to the term „Classic“ when referring to ECN and other related concepts if that use of the term has strong TSVWG consensus. For instance, "classic“ ECN feedback, „classic“ queue, „classic“ traffic would work for me in case TSVWG strongly supports that term.

Thus, personally, I am not asking for any disruptive change. I don’t ask to avoid „Classic“ in general.

What does *not* work for me is the term „Classic“ TCP, in particular when refering to TCP as standardized by TCPM. I also don’t agree to the term „classic“ congestion Control for Reno, CUBIC, CTCP, i.e., work of the TCPM working group. To me, the authors of this document do not have the right to tag work of the TCPM working group with a term such as „classic“ that is used in marketing language.

And there are plenty of simple ways to avoid that problematic term „Classic“ TCP. Here are some more examples:

  *   TCP without the L4S extension
  *   TCP (senders/stacks/connections) not using L4S
  *   TCP without support of L4S
  *   TCP (senders/stacks/connections) lacking L4S support
  *   TCP (senders/stacks/connections) not participating in the L4S experiment
  *   … and more and also permutations thereof

You can also try to reword text to just to avoid the term „Classic“ TCP to work around the problem.

Regarding congestion control, you can refer instead to

  *   specific algorithms such as Reno or CUBIC
  *   „high-speed loss-based congestion control“
  *   or any of the above terms, e.g., „congestion control without L4S support“ and the like

My ask is a simple editorial change that will IMHO only affect few occurences of the term „Classic“. Can you please propose next steps that addess my concern?

Thanks

Michael


Von: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. November 2019 01:22
An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Rodney W. Grimes<mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking

Michael, Rod,

Altho non-L4S is a reasonable idea, I think it has more of a negative connotation than classic. For instance, consider describing Android phones as non-iPhones.

Also, in the ecn-l4s-id draft, we introduce the possibility that some operators might classify non-L4S traffic (DNS, VoIP, EF, NQB, etc) into the same queue as L4S traffic (and we say that in this case the queue would be called the Low Latency queue). This shows that the term non-L4S is not a good choice for a name, because the words it is made from already give it a meaning of its own that conflicts with the definition you want it to have in certain contexts.

For example, if you did define the name "non-iPhone" to mean phones such as Android, Windows, etc, then you would expect the phrase "non-iPhone knock-off products" to mean "fake Android and Windows phones". However the constituent elements "non" and "iPhone" already have a meaning of their own, so in the context of this phrase, it means "fake iPhones", which is the opposite of what you wanted.

The term Classic for the non-L4S service, its queue, its traffic, its congestion control, etc. is defined in the terminology section of the drafts, so I think it's best to live with this - it's not a significant problem. Indeed, it has become widely used and widely understood since 2015, and changing it to non-L4S now would cause unnecessary confusion.



Bob



On 04/11/2019 19:21, Scharf, Michael wrote:

I agree. „non-L4S“ may be even better.



Michael





Von: Rodney W. Grimes<mailto:4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 20:17
An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>; Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>; tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking



> You can e.g. use ?non-L4S-enabled TCP?.
>
> Terminology does matter to me given that I strongly disagree to any use of ?marketing language? when it comes to TCP.

My concern here of use of terms like, legacy, classic, new, old
is that they are pretty much all of the relative from and thus
ambiguous over time.

newReno is new only relative to Reno, that is fairly clear,
but if I said newTCP or oldTCP with what frame should the
reference be evaluated.

I believe in the case of L4S the time invariant term would be,
as Michael suggests above, "non-L4S".   Note that enabled
for me is a noise word in this context, and TCP may or may
not be needed depending on context, but for literal replacement
of Legacy or Classic "non-L4S" is invariant over time.

Rod

> Michael
>
>
> Von: Bob Briscoe<mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
> Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2019 19:09
> An: Scharf, Michael<mailto:Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>; tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org><mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Cc: tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org><mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> Betreff: Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
> Michael,
>
> Previously, I have been told not to use the term standard for RFCs that are not standards. RFC5681 is 'only' a draft standard. This is why, in the IETF at least, I avoid using the term "standard TCP congestion control". I generally call it Reno when referring to the congestion control.
>
> I have never, to my knowledge, used the term classic TCP, or classic TCP congestion control.
>
> And I rarely use the term legacy, and if I do I'm happy to have alternatives suggested.
>
> I've checked the L4S drafts, and there is one phrase that I shall leave in ecn-l4s-id: "the traditional TCP Reno additive increase", because this is correctly used to mean the traditional increase (in numerous AIMD CCs), not traditional TCP. There was one other occurrence of "traditional TCP senders" in a whole para in an appendix that has just been deleted anyway. And in aqm-dualq-coupled there was one "legacy TCP flows" (changed to "Classic traffic" now in my local copy, using the defined term in all the L4S drafts).
>
> l4s-arch is getting a complete make-over for terminology, so I will check that next.
>
> inline...
>
>
> On 23/08/2019 15:01, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi Wes,
>
>
>
> I?d like to add a smaller item that is mostly editorial and can hopefully be sorted just out by re-wording, albeit it may require a careful analysis of all documents.
>
>
>
> As already noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY<https://mailarchive..ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zZkYZKF-hDvWO3I5MudwpNkKyHY> , I object to the terms ?traditional TCP? and also ?classic TCP? or ?legacy? TCP when referring to a TCP implementation according to IETF standards-track RFCs.
>
>
>
> To me as a non-native native speaker, all these terms have a negative connotation. I also think this language is typical to marketing material.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion but, as a native speaker, I don't think 'classic' or 'traditional' are particularly pejorative, tho they can be when used in a context that intends them to be. They also mean "stood the test of time". I find 'legacy' has a connotation of marketing-speak, but it's not that bad.
>
> This is an enduring problem when trying to improve on the good work that other people have done before you (which is the context of everything we are doing). We need a word that distinguishes the old from the new, but we don't want to completely trash the thing that has already been successful, but had its day.
>
> Nonetheless, it is also important not to be too precious about past work. We all recognize that Reno TCP is unscalable and has problems. IMO, it is OK to describe technologies that have had their time with negative connotations. Indeed, you have been an author (with me) of an RFC on open issues in congestion control.
>
> I notice you haven't suggested an alternative term for "the thing(s) we are trying to improve on". Not surprising, because it's difficult.
>
> When we (the L4S developers) were first looking for a term for the non-L4S queue and the non-L4S service, we didn't want to use 'legacy' for the above reasons, but we did want to imply pre-existing, so we decided on 'classic', which we all felt had a generally neutral connotation, but said what we meant.
>
> Finally, I do not want this issue to take up any time that would detract from technical issues.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> My prefered term when referring to TCP according to standards-track specification is ?standard TCP?. I would also be fine with other terms as long as they are neutral and make clear that experiments do not replace, deprecate, or outperform standards.
>
>
>
> Similarly, I think that term such as ?classic? is not appropriate for the TCP standard congestion control (?Reno?). As of today, this is the TCP congestion control algorithm on standards track that has IETF consensus. The term in the TCPM charter is ?TCP standard congestion control?. I also think that terms such as ?Reno-compatible? or the like would be neutral.
>
>
>
> Note that I do not object to the terms ?classic ECN?, ?legacy ECN?, ?legacy AQM? or the like, i.e., if the context is ECN and not specifically TCP or the TCP congestion control. I believe it is up to the TSVWG do decide if this term shall be used for compliance to RFC 3168. I have no strong opinion on that. As far as I can see, most use of the term ?classic? is in this context and I don?t ask for changes in those cases.
>
>
>
> Some use of the term ?Classic Service? may also require careful review to clearly separate it from TCP Standard behavior.
>
>
>
> Note that some use of the term ?Classic TCP? would probably also apply to ?Classic QUIC? once the QUIC standard is finished. To me as a non-native speaker, it would be really strange to use the term ?classic? in the context of a brand-new transport protocol. IMHO in that case the term ?classic? would be even more confusing.
>
>
>
> I also add the TCPM list in CC to ensure consistency.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Michael (with no hat)
>
>
>
>
>
> Von: Wesley Eddy<mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. August 2019 07:08
> An: tsvwg@ietf.org<mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org><mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
> Betreff: [tsvwg] L4S status tracking
>
>
>
> I created tickets in the TSVWG "trac" tool in order to help keep track
> of the individual things that look like they should be addressed in
> progressing L4S document set:
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/report/1?sort=ticket&asc=1&page=1
>
> I'll try to update these based on the ongoing discussions, updates,
> etc., but it will make it very easy if you happen to mention the ticket
> numbers or some key words in threads and messages, when significant.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org><mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/

> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

--
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org<mailto:rgrimes@freebsd.org>


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