From nobody Thu Dec 3 11:39:07 2020 Return-Path: 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 2B3133A0964 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:39:05 -0800 (PST) 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 PBegWbKOZG8d for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 E62D93A0930 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id o24so3869638ljj.6 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:38:59 -0800 (PST) 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=3ZlUWbnBlKPFGwG2fS7aRcT06igqGZah94s9yuaCnAo=; b=BfJQGi3G+8JVLunTrC/Zd1T6BG1i19FxLM58ObS2VrPR+R+tMPADxRPUrOkbjkyyAY K2VBziR2pmyUgWfhebE55Z9mO03v5Re79uDuRC5weii7z2Q1/QexruR0F53xgmleMdut Azx2cTpgQh0t56Zv9U7s2yI12LZmDny8A4G3JmTrdPorVEnTvwm+GX81R3WB4SYWma93 EjWq6K2etwKKsryV1UwZ+2OzCE5jv35uPE0y5uOXHIajLdqkj5V6uzvxR9RigsUoSJYS ArrgZ2SihdoDY1zE3BXAlCDPps7k9lYE+xfxdl35V4mEa/9iPVsbSqE+A2y0R94MSpaW gODw== 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=3ZlUWbnBlKPFGwG2fS7aRcT06igqGZah94s9yuaCnAo=; b=LkBJIpx/LEzu8FJjxeYF+cQLDi+MxjxTmUaPex7BoQVPwPSEvbxccNV6VvH3PGqeTH rbI7ws8IJzB117SQaERTEkpXGpSDWrVayYh8JB5YVViXRl6KLqW39ULjU0K+rj29aU7j F0A4cuGlyxLV+1/nAWPnCrX72YG7ZRQ3fZ3JLArWQbRZcXr9oYZ4xq5hX/sZO3T52jsG FbytzVvoeW54Qay1oCBU6+QNNLbhqJOLCweKtNXKPknIZzIznMB7ry1bUQeOUT51qK0M IfmpNc0c89BIkyDCalQwwvwFW67XMa82DFgfSUULo/BdKhHOA8OjKtD/cog+CRrC2jSD iGKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319cvx0bTYx3lKy94WvaqOxGZ7MyyOTp5BPz6bHr9deIc7XfJuA 0lEhrLGIWw6jRmivbLYtl1oHjdsGw9w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8P9pe39f2qqAfYuKeKgoF77BVu65XQFS7fdfU6syDSG+tj+yvrrG88SNxoDGHAnGw2Ca+Ng== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9707:: with SMTP id r7mr1781435lji.265.1607024338068; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (178-55-159-67.bb.dnainternet.fi. [178.55.159.67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i27sm829713lfg.254.2020.12.03.11.38.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:38:57 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <494cd867-58ad-2cb5-4682-0b4c4f003326@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:38:55 +0200 Cc: Bob Briscoe , Ingemar Johansson S , tsvwg IETF list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0BB9A7C9-ACE1-484C-8031-9F76E54B0F84@gmail.com> References: <56178FE4-E6EA-4736-B77F-8E71915A171B@gmx.de> <0763351c-3ba0-2205-59eb-89a1aa74d303@bobbriscoe.net> <25D05011-8193-482F-8186-A433AE3FE5C3@gmail.com> <494cd867-58ad-2cb5-4682-0b4c4f003326@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: Gorry Fairhurst X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Another tunnel/VPN scenario (was RE: Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap) X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org 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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:39:05 -0000 > On 3 Dec, 2020, at 6:40 pm, Gorry Fairhurst = wrote: >=20 >> Frankly, the sooner the WG understands and accepts that basic fact, = the sooner we can move to a viable solution - one which does not = redefine CE from the semantics established by RFC-3168 and RFC-8511, and = hence does not place burdens on networks which have no interest in the = L4S experiment. >=20 > I think we need to be clear that I understand the proposal is to an = Internet-wide experimental deployment. An Internet-wide experiment will inevitably need to deal with a lot of = "legacy" networks which have never even heard of L4S, have no pressing = desire to change their equipment to accommodate it, and might find it = challenging (or at least costly) to do so even if they desired to. This = especially includes those networks which have already invested in = deploying plain old ECN, most of whom will have done so relatively = recently and are still depreciating those assets. That's precisely why L4S needs to show that it is safe to deploy into = legacy networks, which may depend on existing RFC-3168 assumptions for = their operation, before it can be approved for an Internet-wide = experimental deployment. We have been trying to make that point for two = years already, including through several of the issues (still open) = raised at the previous L4S WGLC at Montreal. Meanwhile, ECN deployment = has been increasing (see Jake's data). - Jonathan Morton