IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tpauly@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 D48963A08B0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.09 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 ey9jOOnRwbYB for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp03.apple.com (ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp03.apple.com [17.171.2.72]) (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 E72993A0931 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp03.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp03.apple.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 045Ffunk049478; Tue, 5 May 2020 08:52:17 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=bFjkHqayv9WpZg0RybMKZmcUZnv9n83FeTDt9eJXGXM=; b=QYovKq6pfA9nfZ2lswb87hvYqFtopGcOZxG03eI5Zh/0zjBN6R0O2P9xXFGTcy5CmuFi JbuN+AXGMQIqdT4GezMJxodyacV06l0HgPZtOzYWU+O2qqh4VLlcrZMdsTIAUahsis3a XQZ+zHv4fqTW7JYi0TCdEcUajblNT/6TnDmZTeDgDb3fjyshbpuNArQSjjh874TcvR+t hHPfEiYf4o5zZ2ZorHg/6aLwo/HZwnBCyXkJZZjmrtuGo5TkDkomyB3PIp0QishAqbre V6BTUec/1Rmp4Vq11MOgXaZ4d4RIBWUwqg8BEgMtcmKmC03AnbQo9YBGcyLzC9zKRw26 Og==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.151]) by ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp03.apple.com with ESMTP id 30s7uupk18-5 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:17 -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 <0Q9V002BE833FL20@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp03.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:15 -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 <0Q9V00X0082SPH00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 8e79d1492e4e0b61ca8bc6d3235fbf65
X-Va-E-CD: f97215defdcafa2ce57a39fb70ab7929
X-Va-R-CD: 951b3df141c3617e0fc9c3edae9a9454
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 88b5aca1-1673-40c8-bfab-35077074bfce
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 8e79d1492e4e0b61ca8bc6d3235fbf65
X-V-E-CD: f97215defdcafa2ce57a39fb70ab7929
X-V-R-CD: 951b3df141c3617e0fc9c3edae9a9454
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: d1a8c787-8f6a-4db7-a8a4-d54392adf62c
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_09:2020-05-04, 2020-05-05 signatures=0
Received: from [17.232.163.198] (unknown [17.232.163.198]) 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 <0Q9V00X0O832R600@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-id: <A54F76F8-C429-43CC-A134-212300376DD0@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D647A11C-17D8-4C8A-9B1C-2F3FE438F00B"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.7.2.3\))
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 08:52:14 -0700
In-reply-to: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
References: <46720ce0-ffcb-e97f-3e2d-6b5274b73b15@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.7.2.3)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_09:2020-05-04, 2020-05-05 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zCCcqI7TEtblFnXLxAta-yVAmFo>
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52:29 -0000

I support using ECT(1) as an input signal (option 1).

Thanks,
Tommy

> On May 4, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
>  In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly (tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>). 
> 
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU>] for context on this question.
> 
> I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.
> I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
> There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
> 
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
> 
> 
>

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status