IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 23 May 2020 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 5B48A3A0F26 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 K81qlL_5lhVA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E4D33A0F1E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zbSn9zkD56aMgnBKxlLbU3PGhb2RoL9SprNhW9xrgPo=; b=gVjCLkROPPrrDYnzrBC/0oo0e mjJG1cAVKR+1BPKnqbAiPCNZlx7xNNnFgj54/CxiGSUfJRMQPSVD/i3pAg0sgbGQfjlqdZxYKc6wC LPWRF/U3Rp1e17XpEjuSQq/FO9SDHv8K6d5vyffHhGM7H2/spwDGl46tN3acgtQ92x8nxv6Upaz3D zCufpFI0ZdibGNg1+gIxPgeMi5vvvXQ+9YBMkKytkFq4Rpvjk8izPmRg3hqQN2OA98UWVi9PFrDo8 bCgEmHRbfsLSI43PCTZ+MLV9w70vwKoGXuTMwJ4SUa6PKNbZvDcEPU/aUP9++9+VPiQBEhrpohIQE b/mLh2jYQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61693 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jcLSQ-003B2r-KR; Sat, 23 May 2020 00:08:26 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_56B79864-8982-4A47-9E44-350227B52222"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB4045E8E38AC814BDC003B26A83B40@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 21:08:21 -0700
Cc: Wes Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <90D8E3DD-17B7-4833-8AD7-A950A23E5C44@strayalpha.com>
References: <d182f539-e0a2-e924-9556-db6577f47357@mti-systems.com> <3228077.bNJ4EoEDyu@linux-9daj> <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com> <43974965-63E3-4D8F-A375-0A8BF039CDC1@strayalpha.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E8E38AC814BDC003B26A83B40@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wUqQXkWJqfwodd5WHtLHrs8EeGM>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)
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, 23 May 2020 04:08:29 -0000


> On May 22, 2020, at 3:37 PM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> But we have not seen a question that suggests either approach overcomes the “first, do nothing” approach - which frankly ought to be our first answer, in this WG.
> [David>] There will be opportunities to express that view in the future, including Working Group Last Call on the L4S drafts (assuming that we get to that stage).

In theory.

In practice, “whether to do something or not” at best (and rarely) happens at WG adoption. After that, the deliverable isn’t “decide whether to proceed” but “deliver X”.

LC is typically only “speak now or forever hold your peace” for updates, never really “should we proceed”. 

—

Note that I appreciate that the IETF wants to let a thousand flowers bloom, encouraging a “denial of service” attack on WG resources that is far too easy to game. But in this case, we’re talking about nailing in stone (in a sense) a decision about a VERY limited resource (TCP header bits).

First, do no harm isn’t the same as ‘which harm would you each prefer”.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email