From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com (mail-pg1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8BCA3CB37 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id a22so2528143pgg.13 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kKD0p5SHmUP+Pneje5pW8r76OUaq6PXNhe56xmHYkDQ=; b=Yvwrzr42J8qMWm9j/DdFeU5J94+kv2/73vkJVFwbniURTE3eQm2oeB/WcP7ZOm00O3 WH1sm88cngA6GQsudsrGkOPl2mzPZ3vzv7ZhAz3I4UrV+RAKRGL5qhZz9wK1hq7z9lYo 2Qq9rAsqYgDpPhalR5uT41ChG8bP9pMRBy5vvNd/2/Pkqv8gwGFSrVopEzayHzibZ2IQ BtRax8CjtZ6+ILamx2JVEPkdCGB0Cfw7g498lGGtkb/vbnDxVJk2pHEwrxEGCe2Cn+VB QXgNoiDK9gKwVnXEvgso0/PVfMJqp6VxCmoL8YsKOIjdGMVeoaExw0JRDhyFlDp3ofJw CC+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kKD0p5SHmUP+Pneje5pW8r76OUaq6PXNhe56xmHYkDQ=; b=KRA/30WyrR66tyLiZcYR5VRPaXljXiujR2RjZy+6ZMz3LJRvZ1Y0iskbba67HP79U0 MQ2R/6Gb/t2Lhmjo3OItbJgvsnhuZoXvMGNWbB5b+GBF6wNP19XL7jzJKEbPaBNWR+8S OaPJ0FQxWE4TIOL0lI4JB4faa91NdzONyg6N/qg8TGJWMR+L0tuU5vZXRyTrWlDCXUbu /m6hsnWSVkhHTbQCZ0lmmdax2IcnCo1WfQONgjBnbj5BNXXo9zit4medo0BJ/x4+P9Ev NPIMc2qmgSUDq+C+wXwGE/si1aZNOJTJHbr7IHi5BaXozLUjMEBXSKOQVee9qI32mbyB JTdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX3vu/3IBvAlFAVCTaiseJJrw4h95ai0dLnG/BbupSu+4UocgEx 1K9khtZ31GVFDDPx5oPeVUDeig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyHO+PwcfhmrhPIANPQIwWtt/gzBzGz78/CewNt3RqkmgfprXYJmJdYunuJTJVEAZ/A0huwGw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:2c87:: with SMTP id s129mr9026686pgs.311.1553111907573; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shemminger-XPS-13-9360 (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t190sm3709800pfb.33.2019.03.20.12.58.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:58:22 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Holland, Jake" Cc: Bob Briscoe , "David P. Reed" , Vint Cerf , tsvwg IETF list , bloat Message-ID: <20190320125822.0fe3c513@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> In-Reply-To: References: <1E80578D-A589-4CA0-9015-B03B63042355@gmx.de> <27FA673A-2C4C-4652-943F-33FAA1CF1E83@gmx.de> <1552669283.555112988@apps.rackspace.com> <7029DA80-8B83-4775-8261-A4ADD2CF34C7@akamai.com> <1552846034.909628287@apps.rackspace.com> <5458c216-07b9-5b06-a381-326de49b53e0@bobbriscoe.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] [iccrg] Fwd: [tcpPrague] Implementation and experimentation of TCP Prague/L4S hackaton at IETF104 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:58:28 -0000 On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:04:17 +0000 "Holland, Jake" wrote: > Hi Bob & Greg, > > I agree there has been a reasonably open conversation about the L4S > work, and thanks for all your efforts to make it so. > > However, I think there's 2 senses in which "private" might be fair that > I didn't see covered in your rebuttals (merging forks and including > Greg's rebuttal by reference from here: > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/2019-March/009038.html ) > > Please note: > I don't consider these senses of "private" a disqualifying argument > against the use of L4S, though I do consider them costs that should be > taken into account (and of course opinions may differ here). > > With that said, I wondered whether either of you have any responses that > speak to these points: > > > 1. the L4S use of the ECT(1) codepoint can't be marked CE except by a > patent-protected AQM scheduler. > > I understand that l4s-id suggests the possibility of an alternate > scheme. However, comparing the MUSTs of the section 5 requirements > with the claims made by the patent seems to leave no room for an > alternate that would not infringe the patent claims, unless I'm missing > something? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-06#section-5 > https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170019343A1/en > Has anyone done a detailed investigation for prior art? The patent office does not do a good job of looking for prior art, and the parties in the patent process are not motivated to look. Other vendors often are not interested either because their own house of cards built on patents of previous research might come falling down.