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

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 10 March 2021 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@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 AAC8E3A1972 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:46:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.599 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 0VQZHPh-a6ui for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (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 E0B1C3A1971 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id u16so20668611wrt.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 19:45:58 -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=cQc1l/OO+bgaPDvBI8loNi1PUotDKnVicT7xAvuQBDU=; b=ft3dsv2g8s79rBh9g4rxYugx0xkyngG76eSxk/6qkrxB1kqjWUBNg2x9xt16akCFFv hHH04HNXgQkGpQDJnC8OJ9DNor3uyIunv2Xt+1ak6LxefyzlCwqU1dXtFK2ekqdMJ8ah 7XIGEx1R8lSqu0OIndet+RG+HidV3W72y6SgZn5owCGtrO05x8mLw+tIVDe2gZXbWqI2 Gw7Vfs/8YjlGid71qNKkULAvl4abLn7xKX6I9+oOwm3klX2McU6KdPi4RoDkrij5TrgH lSo7XvWNA6MG37yP0bhFSSlr5aVN7hRoAIXTtR0wVHyDsyu3faqjatm9QisFB3knHPkw f+bg==
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=cQc1l/OO+bgaPDvBI8loNi1PUotDKnVicT7xAvuQBDU=; b=PfIkNvEN3AWow0Np/2pkz7EwykY4mEQxJhrhIjhE0r9HCNfLjbibvQWU+pPgsARzRV /p525xPVHHqYpqH5ewn725A3iUADUDtjFgNvPoekLH54HnV4QsUy8phwRMRc8Hhs1mjX /cQLhnbptc80USsr18S7PvQMTx2qFhzB8W39ZEhifcun9WBn8pzjABDa/jB78Lqh06uJ kjJvpquYTbuMI00Ik9dMHon1LBM9tsTyb5ZhCceuIwj6CsjTN2XLKCgN2Y27hgUR1Qes YqgLg+PT5lGUQGm/JK9pHfk1NNGbP6LRRWcn9dXXYEmD8PNiq3t3j4UxUU2mIPyFQPQl HfeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533iL0y7cfCUIjpRNct8kZsm4bA5rEfkaX73UlQaULMQeWwNf3lW ofJ/OCY5bDZmqnt+iN9aOxmDJoaXTIcjyjdpty88pQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAxzbzh4aeq22IxKa+ITMRURlqfjXDYDrGalz7Y0L+WPVw3XEOwL6tLg2uT6BjgBXoxtCWp7ffErph1MwGKIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:558b:: with SMTP id i11mr1096593wrv.176.1615347955394; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 19:45:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9d807812-78a7-6066-5c5f-6f2b02507439@bobbriscoe.net> <CADVnQykGJNo3wF7pr4_OYxtzQAaN_A3y6trOQO3T2B8bWiWG+w@mail.gmail.com> <85740827-9e28-4f7a-018b-e7da60d9e8ae@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <85740827-9e28-4f7a-018b-e7da60d9e8ae@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:45:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gMjDhAbF9_6NPb=eyZkBWcAioKr5hG8YxLBxpWfQhU=UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000012379b05bd268176"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/u60lu5s1wk9hKQx11oSYI5vHXGA>
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 03:46:01 -0000

Thanks Bob, I just wanted to confirm.

I prefer Reno-compatible over considerate or accommodating, but I'm open to
other terms.  Also, I believe Neal used the term Reno-compatible first in
the context of BBRv2 gain cycling, but I could be wrong.

Thanks, Ian

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:19 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:

> Neal,
>
> On 09/03/2021 02:35, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> This one is getting closer.
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> neal
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>