Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim

Wesley Eddy <> Wed, 11 March 2020 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976F13A0B04 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXQrvizXs4_J for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408383A0B1B for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q18so2496607qki.10 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=5mVTzqAunnmDKjN57YJi5F/fOKjU7DwtzWrt0+4K37Q=; b=NoY7CJvstXPfeyppmay5qkfkdhqy00nZ7KDS0+mdATWMt6t8/Nm4FMbkYJ1NoPW071 rxxQ7Q07xgemiJfGPRyBb6pLzdsv14dPo+XQbwDgRm9TUEGNCCbwiITuh4u50+8hla/f Ud/G9PH6OOgmpInBqOGT5eajVhRolZmddmDrD2XE30Bh1jjQCo7JHJr3j6AL6x1a3GcR TFUVICxcML5hVIHbqDhL0/12ThgGFgmUkg+ZU4d8BtCfMzC2Hpiz/1J6LaPMZeMl/bjL /N/qbxeRzM05ULGnfkU27+aVoh0Rw9QuELn7C8pKd2UvI9XrFJMvX3k74WzmyVB9Jlxw isaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=5mVTzqAunnmDKjN57YJi5F/fOKjU7DwtzWrt0+4K37Q=; b=QypAoPJAbBpfIEHlY3P8W3DimXLfVwyHUW61bEm4LezD2RdP5dsIwc96GudQ10rB0F IWPjJS5y5AoOf5pJx07jfY33DTupnXp5d983fyYCt0qistFnl3LLhVOsqEzyIjKDVhwQ a/4W5IWIScoKAXoMVH3Z/qcXW9zeEFjvwKjUTSW6nO1PCm7nwOhr6YbgFMfzh35R1EGz EBwMsrRLmwy7ShtKcaCk2atyET6n+0t9n8VL1ApkZQWsrYKZqYwtEaEmXFgcOGRmC7A/ KzGQM6YMcoNOJTcgx/38WlGqGkTtyXdMxBOl4yPMnvoaGiBchyoAeRP90tReLXAwm/G5 c/rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1CsU6ivTppbMHLr5R6KsvY7sZvoCKnl0clLjjxpPVnd/Nk868Q rHSrP7YPcEjuHhPgJK7ZeleykNq248xvcA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsvcEGoJN+ErOYwT/UlkU4Ux0UDm5bJzZvSw7Xjmp4vk2+BIKA/jjL4ZYM5y1W93dqoMeJzeg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9407:: with SMTP id w7mr3375956qkd.55.1583941803859; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z8sm7869445qta.85.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:50:01 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:50:14 -0000

On 3/9/2020 4:10 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> QUESTION @Chairs: What are the conditions and aims for the TSVW WG in deciding to grant an RFC like L4S experimental status? I would love to get a clarification please.

There are 3 chairs, and I only speak for 1, but the bottom-line is 
simply "WG rough consensus" (decently described in RFC 7282).

Beyond that, I don't think we are adding or removing any explicit 
criteria.  The RFCs on congestion control evaluation cover things that 
have traditionally been of interest/concern to the community in 
developing consensus that technologies were safe enough for experimental 
deployment on the Internet.  In the case of the technologies that are 
proposing to use ECT(1) for experiments today, I don't think this is any 

As a chair, when sending to the IESG for recommended publication, I also 
want to see that:

(1) There is wide interest in deploying the technology.

(2) The concerns with it are understood well enough to be considered by 
people deploying it, and they are aware of what they might want to 
measure or what means are possible to mitigate problems.

Sometimes the "experiments" don't clearly succeed (global deployment) 
nor fail (nil deployment), but wind up very useful in some cases, and 
not of interest in others.  In the case of ECT(1) (considered by itself 
without any DSCP-scoping), there probably should be some bit of a plan 
or analysis around what happens if the technology persists in pockets 
where it's useful, but doesn't have 100% deployment over the Internet.  
We will need to consider the status of the ECT(1) codepoint, and how it 
can be used in the future whether these experimental specs are 
successful (widely deployed), partially successful (deployed in 
pockets), or failed (not deployed, or found defective and eventually