From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (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 C08753B29E; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id 203so24785029lfa.12; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 09:11:54 -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=8Z8fCjmfR8VMO2XRonUICtkN6xuHQpUc+R/nxwEhUCQ=; b=Not4drt6ffGgIXyTJ4q+c3OQgZER7wy1WnjsSQ6Vj/Oap1/TmFeKQA2tsSSrhW4cCD G9oS9jFLz6aJwRzgKC8nYL50IwaTCkzgxxPQhoMU0Yd4xmLN/iE1mM344WY7NUFr65iK szQN9fVHpGUo86t+W/suqYBUh+8y8ja5vLFzzxfNjbC0qeuuVmtTyAaskZkDL9qIjIZ8 VJVN5QIFGYqWBxVP51XweIgIyGUM+PUjouitdae5upxJ0ei/WeT1nGJSHV5XB8rDwPCE q6sw00sBS5R0Q/uxAQenLE6vwwc/M0XAKywaa1QVy2ZZi73qRWj2LuNuGcAxWI+9oNNx t/YQ== 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=8Z8fCjmfR8VMO2XRonUICtkN6xuHQpUc+R/nxwEhUCQ=; b=K5WOXMTV3SUrd/lJ1WR+buhequrzt5BbUyiCbTv43h8sWQb/jU/6tpoS5iCelNcFWs SD+H8rO6bqxHCMwWxDc3C6icST9f9Be5OkqYr1cMFYkw0q95L9/Kj/AKQxaFD5lqxg/b OdmsI4U3Dgrdy+GzgWV2tz9yG1rSCntevZa51Zfe4DKDtew9I/6Cl+3UPhZP9Lr0bd2T /8CNZ4Xm5fO/OYKAPjJaMWhQt5olhUtt0fwd/EiuidrQW5SJJ3kfGaA5huL2VWQfy08g RgV+7s4EQIb8H+6EyRNc95dwewPDj11j+BZd87K7h/smi/ZPSLfvu5Y+nxWbX2OjfAuF A7lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAViQBPmXHow94ZBhwBGwH2rN11xUbNC/4F7NkF/6DnLYY/0xcc+ CYyo0YoVXbS4bSPd7vsPqmQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4zDgpeXVU8ylxgEqIn/TitGR1Me/2G9syoEnYKVzegmNuZW4OclMmZ+AsBmvHjPEON0+FaA== X-Received: by 2002:a19:cc08:: with SMTP id c8mr38243063lfg.124.1575133913609; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 09:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-229-102-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.229.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v5sm7162086ljk.67.2019.11.30.09.11.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Nov 2019 09:11:52 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <63DE3099-443D-4ADB-84ED-B1A25AB6D80C@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:51 +0200 Cc: "alex.burr@ealdwulf.org.uk" , ECN-Sane , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <63E9C0E4-C913-4B2F-8AFC-64E12489BC65@gmail.com> <297503679.4519449.1575069001960@mail.yahoo.com> <54C976BC-DEC7-4710-9CFF-0243559D9002@gmail.com> <156EA284-C01D-4FAA-89F4-DB448795F7FC@gmx.de> <385CF47C-17AD-4A62-9924-068E1485FFD5@gmail.com> <63DE3099-443D-4ADB-84ED-B1A25AB6D80C@gmx.de> To: Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Ecn-sane] sce materials from ietf 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: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:11:55 -0000 > On 30 Nov, 2019, at 5:42 pm, Sebastian Moeller = wrote: >=20 >>> I fear that they will come up with something that in reality will a) = by opt-out, that is they will assume L4S-style feedback until = reluctantly convinced that the bottleneck marker is rfc3160-compliant = and hence will b) trigger too late c) trigger to rarely to be actually = helpful in reality, but might show a good enough effort to push L4S past = issue #16. >>=20 >> I'm sure they will, and we will of course point out these = shortcomings as they occur, so as to count them against issue #16. =20 >=20 > That might be bad position to be in though (if one party only = gives negative feed-back no matter how justified it will generate a = residual feeling of lack of good faith cooperation), I would have = preferred if the requirements would have bee discussed before. >=20 >> Conversely, if they do manage to make it fail-safe, it is highly = likely that their scheme will give false positives on real Internet = paths and fail to switch into L4S mode, impairing their performance in = other ways. >=20 > Yes, so far they always err on the advantage of L4S, and justify = this with "but, latency" and if one buys the latency justification = cautiously default to rfc3168 becomes obviously sub-optimal, and so far = none of the chairs put down the "first, do no harm" hammer (and I doubt = they will).=20 We do have a political ally in the form of David Black. As one of the = authors of RFC-3168, he has a natural desire to defend his work. At = Singapore I believe he mostly spoke from the floor, but he is also = advocating for SCE behind the scenes. He's actually quite encouraged by = the situation at present, in which L4S were seen to bluster for 2+ hours = without actually moving very much forward, while we were able to present = some new work in a very limited time. I got the impression that failing to close most of L4S' open issues at = Singapore is politically damaging to them. This is a substantial list = of problems opened at Montreal, as blockers for their WGLC on publishing = L4S drafts as experimental RFCs. They had all the time in the world to = talk about solutions to the major showstopper problems, but were only = able to concede a point that maybe tying RACK to the ECT(1) codepoint is = better written as a SHOULD instead of a MUST. That lack of progress was = noticed at the WG Chair level; I think they may have been giving them = the rope to hang themselves, so to speak. I think they had a slide up = at the side session, showing massive unfairness between L4S and = "classic" flows, for a full half-hour - and they somehow thought that = was *helpful* to their case! I'm reasonably sure some industry attendees also noticed this - Stuart = Cheshire (of Apple) in particular. Apple have been on the front lines = of enabling ECN deployment in practice in recent years. He invited me, = one of the ICCRG chairs, and Bob Briscoe - among others - to dinner, = where we discussed some technical distinctions and Bob demonstrated a = fundamental misunderstanding of control theory. And we will have more ammunition at Vancouver. It remains to be seen = how much progress they'll make=E2=80=A6 - Jonathan Morton=