Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Thu, 14 May 2020 03:44 UTC
Return-Path: <cheshire@apple.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 C57DD3A0AF9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.173, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=apple.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 WcaXzho3aIpo for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [17.151.62.66]) (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 DCD283A0AF7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04E3fWro005312; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:32 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=20180706; bh=0pTFwruGDsW77yE+houTJNMTF2RrBTNN37KtZx1cvQY=; b=sa4Naw75B3ZMTSPjO4OkC5ojff+H09IcFwK7qNIsCtJgw8kOyuuV1DTNNxRGTAJFQ5Pe cFE3DRTy37HJb7IMSswphyVxLWDB04rqEunuUf3Suw532dKXalFXDL9A8QQ6pt59xGNM DDMtaNXrBtU2QghRTVwipnQhgGEkf02UMr1swZ42KaY5lV6/hJZNp0CYtGqOvFYX5H7c f3AAnd7mdIJJgKqlB/45D8gqo07Q9KNLnknnyZsniTYt2ZppiqtFA/BN3VvlauRydnV+ RySIHdEF2kXzNewsDBCH9S5zVk7aWl9eITxqAcbZ5zu0kOgAsz21RHp/0kGwd7jArFU8 yQ==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.151]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com with ESMTP id 3100y83r9a-9 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:32 -0700
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.17]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPS id <0QAA004RPYE6AQ60@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) id <0QAA00M00Y96G900@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 8e79d1492e4e0b61ca8bc6d3235fbf65
X-Va-E-CD: 8a0e641fb401659e23888652d1d548ac
X-Va-R-CD: a065157974cecc3fd6810dc270c824fa
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 759b7b4f-ef21-4e64-8e8e-f71f160a03c6
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 8e79d1492e4e0b61ca8bc6d3235fbf65
X-V-E-CD: 8a0e641fb401659e23888652d1d548ac
X-V-R-CD: a065157974cecc3fd6810dc270c824fa
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: 302be01e-fdc7-4cf2-8ab8-23ed9aa6a1d9
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-13_09:2020-05-13, 2020-05-13 signatures=0
Received: from [17.234.2.108] (unknown [17.234.2.108]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPSA id <0QAA007IFYE5WW00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 20:44:29 -0700
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <AA8650CE-8DAA-4E6D-BDAB-23986A1E505F@apple.com>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-13_09:2020-05-13, 2020-05-13 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/xhFJ7fLJnKOoSdmL15dGFNLZbBk>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)
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: Thu, 14 May 2020 03:44:35 -0000
On 4 May 2020, at 11:15, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote: > In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. I support option 1, using ECT(1) as an *input* signal to the network. We need an input signal to the network because it allows the sender to signal to the network that it it is able to gracefully handle (and indeed, benefit from) ultra-shallow network queues. It also serves as a commitment by the sender not to abuse that shallow queue by bloating it (under pain of severe penalty if caught doing that by a stochastic traffic policer). Without an input signal to communicate the source’s request for the shallower queue (and acceptance of the corresponding consequences if caught cheating) the network can’t know to which traffic it can safely apply the stricter policy. Stuart Cheshire
- [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Greg White
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Steven Blake
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jeremy Harris
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Smith, Kevin, Vodafone Group
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Roland Bless
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Anders Bloom
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Finkelstein, Jeff (CCI-Atlanta)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tommy Pauly
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Uma Chunduri
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Kyle Rose
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Holland, Jake
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ozer, Sebnem
- [tsvwg] 3) "There is a specific test or tests I n… Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Ranganathan, Ram
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Paul Vixie
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Adi Masputra
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Asad Sajjad Ahmed
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Christoph Paasch
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Lars Eggert
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tilmans, Olivier (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Andreas Petlund
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Jana Iyengar
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Joakim Misund
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Pete Heist
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Vividh Siddha
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) David Pullen
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Campos, Angel, Vodafone Spain
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Karthik Sundaresan
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Praveen Balasubramanian
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) philip.eardley
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Tom Henderson
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Dave Taht
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) K. K. Ramakrishnan
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Liyizhou
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Dan Siemon
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mohit P. Tahiliani
- [tsvwg] More testing (was: Consensus call on ECT(… Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Roland Bless
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1) Steven Blake