Re: [tsvwg] FW: path forward on L4S issue #16

Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 6376C3A0A7B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 00:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 2p_F8DM1QchR for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 00:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140054.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.54]) (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 BBC363A0A26 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 00:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jZtRBKPhqlgG1kqQJXP8AHitnEM7KA1TaD6/0huitmxN9A7f1+VFzsjGd8+6D1d6qqvIfmS7knLmpN9FwN20hK24TG1b+RbVTlZoeEN0Y01MwiSI+cRq7+gU2REvwMWXSew6n+FT+5qFLKAkrTVdmzzYa/WwUa8zTdxvVFGgfyyicRHi0hnOFXpPOvMrPrmW/SDgkc6uMuyLhYibTZmTaoSs87iq1gXGhz//CC2kkdepJdEiyGrtZzK06Owou7S79dX8CwTq83FUIiUKhCUbKN/1pCvLV7UI3o2SWvFAD8XngztNHN9eNl3zNpsuLNUQWPo/p1suEZoov2Gec8Okhw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bait/Q2dQmDaHiTI4IiR3j5IhHidOGtTLr+F2Jh9RE0=; b=bTlOgRUDAvtv2M4P/2HqprIs0YrQv5Wz+h5+QgcLm8j0DUJXa2ywyIRoUuOKsVzL8TV7TTeaycxEvf5VuYr7NGlTazlO2yEtpMDvdcWwWa0X4EY65zXh8dxNs6lNBUNVVeA18m01WvyCJK6Yv87KNCzb2vPkBkx3wk83kmD1f7QzJKe30wnON+QlQDs+gnw0TRrbkGyqAOoxfZnp2s0shkY5Jv4WWJG8JiZsxW3hEm9Me75IMSYP4At92bzQxmLnYDZ0nLsR+ZyPViZ8/f3qfJcd/RENVsIIlcBs5YZhSy12KyWhIP9O5YTdd25z5xmBL8ai+iOUXe/vHNEWDZXAWQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bait/Q2dQmDaHiTI4IiR3j5IhHidOGtTLr+F2Jh9RE0=; b=N9Hm1dMUzmJBCqHJgb8Hcmm5sKrvFu126Vruj9iLvjPmhYxwDM6GBYTCANeVU3xN11dr8NQvfmrk4SbhPdrRXac8UHYIBXIkfScV0L25gMq/p9JTodZPb6d6d3kwCL+hGgshilyhHE02aSN/eZ7c3ATQ2yi/rNnAv+tcnyFXQiU=
Received: from HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:56::8) by HE1PR0701MB2554.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:94::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3088.9; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:33:50 +0000
Received: from HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f411:8f72:4035:41d1]) by HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f411:8f72:4035:41d1%8]) with mapi id 15.20.3088.016; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:33:49 +0000
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "chromatix99@gmail.com" <chromatix99@gmail.com>
CC: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: FW: path forward on L4S issue #16
Thread-Index: AdY+LDAfJLf+lf/HQ5a9/djEFxdJcw==
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR0701MB2876AA3CBBA215B9FB895B0AC2820@HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.176.1.83]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 51242fc4-9745-45eb-d77b-08d80c4773eb
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2554:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR0701MB25546B54084ACA3CC8D4B978C2820@HE1PR0701MB2554.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 042957ACD7
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: aCri17v/9vBKbure9UrGoxBEhAexTDQzTPGf42l4J7e6pJ07zyUCLz687L20n4kSOE3+uASgBOkyhglr50P9HW70hJoKA9bGpsYgaGJiF48Lc3rekV5vlQ1R8XnrK+sBTXGWGDsQXnt+eiivpJAS06OW0oKrsJxYThsOzKk+dUxD78ZAVK1pHpoPdIpo2k49GgrvFull1ZSmJoA28fTMXbc0BIEYnjN1WRhFb2OcCFQKtANTsm7Kx/MJCuQPlKsQ+nV9C08+jFyU7sR7HyRMTyuTr13no7ThojCVAqd6EO4VAOT0kJ1N8lg52yhm6A24LpEYjx4G6jKccIbAQt2HJprpUohzEi9ZJ6AnSz6zBsQjOghixnk9yUE2kMAFLA+PnrvH9li4+pfN408GLVp3Cw==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR0701MB2876.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(136003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(4743002)(86362001)(8676002)(5660300002)(66616009)(2906002)(99936003)(6506007)(4744005)(64756008)(66446008)(52536014)(76116006)(66556008)(66946007)(4326008)(26005)(33656002)(186003)(8936002)(66476007)(107886003)(110136005)(316002)(478600001)(71200400001)(966005)(7696005)(83380400001)(9686003)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 4vIspq4h8bIxeCfSStxPg6og1xYb21pE2MsTCy868lEWE2rO88/0KhTyaADIPeIl81LFfjx2U5H91kLeOq0Gp7hz8rl354rrf/fkGnp+VQTrpxVEn7q6hldOlj1+tS+Se4tIF8cZgs0bkCluhzP+do2yIgcAmh2fweclI1uAqhJFB8DMLTxDoolHzuHGbENcdB1OQLqEY2IfzKih12eJly7ZE89zLcwdIvh9Z89dlaILYNxCROhNyWYyVjZ5Gy3rZRP9+oasfD9jUmW+rlOTFi7xZ0JpZDz+R76ITv/e+NSeVY5OabO97QRVVsBDMBqL82mepqtPa7XPGRNinCHph27b2WZncfZePZI4efkHjiRagzDTgYvo0nE92tkzF1XuO0wxvBrxeOlAw7LJIu1L1IubEfk6I5ETYvSqJkv+nWCBm7ymX+DCEvgvUcbuiA9d6kSNHyjEKVR00nZiLHqCpgQ/ZkQjrLdlr1ep0FZrroE=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01EC_01D63E41.13A0CCF0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 51242fc4-9745-45eb-d77b-08d80c4773eb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jun 2020 07:33:49.9072 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: RTod3rr7tPcgfau4/fQCLiWGJsOubqj267vCv9jnCn0P4CXyQgsrGMt+mPRC5pif8p4mFQGczXv2niiLxQNgsMw2GUSVNNznED6ACVGrfXHTIfZ7D+n3pwpTDPG9xE/r
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2554
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/-vcHa-ZA_lbCbWqZ35CxKpWI6Ek>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] FW: path forward on L4S issue #16
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 07:33:57 -0000

Jonathan..

" I think some concrete evidence of this possibility was provided by the
> experimental adaptation of SCReAM to use L4S signalling, which was
> discussed here fairly recently.  The implementation took a very bare-bones
> approach, copying only the use of the ECT(1) marker and the DCTCP
> response algorithm from whatever original source they used.  The result
was
> summarily declared a success by its author without any analysis of how it
> might interact with conventional traffic; I assume he relied on the L4S
team
> proper to have done their homework in that respect.
"

For the record the thread is
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/FFQH_XG0-wbLIt7JRJ33dH8Fyfc/ 
and the caveat was clearly visible in the post 
"Even though it is more than a magnitude difference in queue delay between
CoDel-ECN and L4S, it is fair to say that these simple simulations should of
course be seen as just a snapshot."

/Ingemar