From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF653B29D; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 12:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 19GGwFeZ051662; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from 4bone@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 19GGwEm2051661; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 4bone) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-Id: <202110161658.19GGwEm2051661@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <95231AF9-DCCA-4D41-9BF4-8F55307F45F6@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) CC: Dave Taht , Cake List , ECN-Sane X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 08:18:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [Cake] [Ecn-sane] l4s kernel submission X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 16:58:18 -0000 Jonathan, etc, I went fishing down the rabbit hole and think I see how the masses have been brainwashed about L4S, at least partially. It might be worth spending some effort to "debunk" the claims in the paper: https://bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_journal_draft20190726.pdf I am EXTREAMLY concerned about the following miss leading assertions by the authors: " BEGIN-QUOTE V. DEPLOYMENTCONSIDERATIONS A. Standardization Requirements The IETF has taken on L4S standardization work [13]. [19] considers the pros and cons of various candidate identifiers for L4S and finds that none are without problems, but proposes ECT(1) as the least worst. As a consequence, the IETF has updated the ECN standard at the IP layer (v4 and v6) to make the ECT(1) codepoint available for experimentation [7]. [7] BLACK, D. Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation. Request for Comments RFC8311, RFC Editor,Jan. 2018 END-QUOTE My problem with this "claim" is that it is made in the name of the IETF, which is not true. Bob Briscoe and others are who are making these claims, the IETF has NOT yet spoken formally on L4S. Though RFC8311 DOES relax the restrictions, Bob etc al, make it sound as if L4S is a done deal. Regards, Rod > > On 15 Oct, 2021, at 1:17 am, Dave Taht wrote: > > > >> You can also subscribe to Linux lists by importing the mails from Lore, > >> as one of the replies in the thread above pointed out. Been meaning to > >> switch to that myself, but haven't gotten around to it yet... > > > > I attempted to subscribe again, nothing happened. > > > > figuring out lore... is too much work for today. I'd rather hammer > > small things into oblivion on my boat. > > > > please feel free to pass along my comments and the sce teams findings > > into that thread. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/308C88C6-D465-4D50-8038-416119A3535C@gmail.com/ > > I haven't yet posted a link to the WGLC Objections document. I will if it seem s necessary to do so. > > - Jonathan Morton > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org