From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F483B29E; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 05:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 00454B2; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:47:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1552297639; bh=6o2HAwYqnOtPdjWJo7le5pSchu5vFjR1LuoQy+h2xSc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ej0cL2QKvryobqBYW4xy2op1/YPcvrVvyqOWHCuRSGDsJ2twPXA2sY/dVJIiXLdA9 iVb8YIiytJ0HgYIueeYnlehC0/NZB366nhO+9UBTZf8dILT6tj5M89jAjcJG1iOTPB aRrY8K0QUWBiqiAl7Yeja5qjVQX9AyWsjsUn7QDk= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2601B0; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:47:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:47:18 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: Richard Scheffenegger , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , bloat , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Cake List In-Reply-To: <2594F939-829A-443C-B1FE-2193F870E48B@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <550C0248-1704-49DA-ABDC-49A91E0AC6F3@akamai.com> <1EE25778-8571-4506-A334-38C544470ACE@gmail.com> <2594F939-829A-443C-B1FE-2193F870E48B@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cake] [Bloat] The "Some Congestion Experienced" ECN codepoint - a new internet draft - 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: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:47:20 -0000 On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote: >> On 11 Mar, 2019, at 11:07 am, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >> Well, I am not convinced blowing the last codepoint on SCE has enough merit. > > I will make a stronger statement: I am convinced that blowing the last codepoint on L4S does *not* have enough merit. ... and I believe that blowing it on SCE doesn't have merit either. That's the entire thing why I am opposing the use of ECT(1) unless we're *really* *really* *really* sure there is something we want to blow it on. Using it for SCE for me is marginal benefit compared to what ECT(1) could be used for either. I think L4S is proposing enough novelty that it could be used for that, but I'm open for other suggestions. SCE isn't enough. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se