IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Scope of the L4S Experiment (was: Guard DSCP)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 16:44 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 E70CE3A11CA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:44:24 -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 VdUxOXnZOoXg for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 788D73A11C4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id n138so14290540lfa.3 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:44:20 -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=7BNHXRwG+X+QDYdYC5RGavO9jErpoZ+vVsKkeT5/k+s=; b=qxSywIuZ9CcbETnMLcWQU7TTcZvvB2ufLWEcB3sMY1s34iMA/qf6hVsSgvkPMnLJoN FdVBOtX47V141ZmUkquQsixv0m7sAGfK5BYfLREljHr+NF+TDcRd6VaU/1TiCIsR66Sb yLGfIkmHAtKMBFQmhdDE4BPcyZc/U/br+jwUZrPkQtyhCCfrQ1tGrbMKzOBVy+Elj88R R9RVYX7GUQJ5HTNmbLVlwF1MZAJZtMjcscMPxCZTIKEJJfwms5aPOovuDMlybgXJSMWb uHJW2utaiR2+u2h9Bmr+Hyp7BtZNnhFcoZElJ3/BSRnsOyn1HggFckpKmudgkNB2bTKs P09w==
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=7BNHXRwG+X+QDYdYC5RGavO9jErpoZ+vVsKkeT5/k+s=; b=atXgKr/sN9Cr9JIgzBD/n66sXir+KjstsrRnqAolUbNSwJTlruGAA04zAbVA69yxl7 rNSCJpaSDqO1Cgntmvu1ijNRB04emCWpa+B5ZpQPDh07cCxa2B4U6YVX8yJzqrJ0OhPc l7SjB/3iExx0Arc5tqyNBvmHIWLodOd6rraNAo/adryGq03pNY3cl688wSZ/0pKYogSz q5OLUTlKZH1vHt8Ul1FSLsIlQhHXbtlKMCvUh4cwNGXH5zHhm+feC6X7Ccr4fns8FwSQ sLkdo2VH+5Jp58fn6F9XvYOsbE2kLnUlU+c7BJy1YNdZ1gxJmw3VCpbeqcecQ8/sKgA5 misA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532X+XTEr4RwoackJ0Qe9Wq1Xp9KI+W0ZdR3IUnj1XPfqmA6wAZz kylWLmhLWxYhGoUSia9Af+w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1tIQzEvhvc1GxgjzGIF6kXQBUoCNorAeYSQ1y4wUNMHs4KzaFCWchS7tWcZpcdM+4GcZjNg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5e36:: with SMTP id o22mr8067023lfg.529.1620146658238; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (178-55-25-11.bb.dnainternet.fi. [178.55.25.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j13sm313965lfe.90.2021.05.04.09.44.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 May 2021 09:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB4045E0692C6A5C3C18317D00835A9@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 19:44:16 +0300
Cc: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EB3837AF-4ECC-41EC-B0D8-1C8FDBE2DDCB@gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR19MB4045D7179410986A46C3E30783469@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <458e847061d1dd6a45bfa5bec046d201e88c8075.camel@heistp.net> <CACL_3VE3rfmAZewOCWTzfC5A9v7c2HgZ8NAxdt_5qKg5Rn0QNQ@mail.gmail.com> <a9e0781559a0ca4fcf02c225b67d3037bc56ea8f.camel@heistp.net> <02DBC945-B1D5-4A70-8906-E48831951C5C@gmx.de> <CACL_3VF8Nt-fH9RwncFVVvwicuON7A_R6JU8Y_OXqBwTOpdmKw@mail.gmail.com> <64AC29EE-2576-41C4-8411-7C66518A3853@gmail.com> <CACL_3VG3M-jFOHkCPCinnDP3G=gYU_0nnDz5Qwi9BJ501PrZFg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB404525C9FD6052D0A195F44683429@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CACL_3VGDd80FeqrH+8_2+Chbh-cT9-bpW-gfH7itSgXN3=_cbA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045FE83AE49A3317476A6BD83419@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <CACL_3VEmgtk3XvNmshwmTf10pP99iGP9bTk5XpQ+iKDuCRhn-w@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E0692C6A5C3C18317D00835A9@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/uJxZPZrDJsLXTu8TNnlHP60bg9o>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Scope of the L4S Experiment (was: Guard DSCP)
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, 04 May 2021 16:44:25 -0000

> On 4 May, 2021, at 7:35 pm, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> Short answer (as I understand it) – L4S was originally intended to be compatible.  For details of what compatible means in this context, see Section 4.3 of RFC 4774 (Option 3:  Friendly Coexistence with Competing Traffic, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4774#section-4.3).

That surprises me a bit, since there's nothing in L4S' design that makes it inherently compatible with RFC-3168 traffic.  With a working "Classic ECN detection heuristic" they could reasonably claim Option 2, ie. detecting whether they were in a participating network or not and switching modes.  At present, they don't even have that.

> You're not the only person who has expressed the view that L4S is not able to proceed under RFC 4774 Option 3.

I will remind readers briefly that SCE *is* an RFC-4774 Option 3 proposal.  That is what sets it apart from L4S.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email