IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID

"Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sat, 08 May 2021 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 1F89A3A20A3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HpNC8QmYQKYf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0723A209F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 May 2021 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC3F91B00064; Sat, 8 May 2021 18:15:21 +0100 (BST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-15900510-F1DF-4B12-8F5B-14DA47DEEFC8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Gorry (erg)" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 18:15:21 +0100
Message-Id: <55CCC0EF-87EF-4EA2-B16E-16127248EF08@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <CACL_3VHaheyR=4GKL4BNYprXxEubMkA49WQKQ3uzn=WZVgYusg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VHaheyR=4GKL4BNYprXxEubMkA49WQKQ3uzn=WZVgYusg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D70)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/vDM7HvDhuFR-khsHWvw-fwHcYho>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID
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: Sat, 08 May 2021 17:15:32 -0000

See below 

> On 8 May 2021, at 16:15, C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:22 PM Gorry Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
>> [GF] You seem to keep arguing in a direction that would result in 
>> obsoleting RFC3168 before we progress L4S, but I don't agree this 
>> ordering is needed. The proposal I see is that the deployment takes 
>> place and then the IETF has the option to decide what happens next.
> 
> Seeing the word ***deployment*** instead of the word ***experiment***
> in the last sentence above,  I have to agree with Sebastian on this point.
> 
> Mike Heard  

Well, I think that the purpose of an EXP RFC is to allow initial deployment, and to gain useful experience and then to understand any changes that are  needed to the Spec.

Nobody needs a RFC to do an experiment within their own controlled network. Anyway, this is what I will call  the “alternate ECN semantics RFC” already allows using a private DSCP.

I also know that In many cases, EXP specs do not result in any useful deployment, and that also is a risk.

Gorry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email