From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 37B6F3B29D for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id t9so20055141ljt.8 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:06:31 -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=UV/V0fmCzzU8JdOklq++pUDHUU846vfdWLddaUogJM4=; b=Mao8b1vRGCw4vIeWzL42+lK0CTe3G1iOnCVZtAIjyMfquwpoGW2Am12FmvOO6ZA4ew txa7nAZB6e0UslbQJQurFTXcfPvViKBKi+C9rxJCEpVIw8BbIvawCplFB2QA39+q0aG9 ukJVcQUe7yMKQ4/CilhVhS0263vtpwuDoFH0qcD6lhsSo9eBWF5StWvc7iRx+oyk+VZ/ obZRmd28YQVdFE3TvrJAE8BBexF8zwPYilNJjICcPkgpDCR+k1MVgp/Lz2HLwUIzueRp Yo9qC7eL97ZZEh8dNJMd3YRUSHbPG5d1zxNKi4lyC79Qp65Yfruy6+L0TWiwXOeCOpo3 WWzw== 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=UV/V0fmCzzU8JdOklq++pUDHUU846vfdWLddaUogJM4=; b=WPr83ileoNVK3TLKdDiJrMMkFa4y8XbP6Z4dxe/b6CxUgEw+CzeAkgGsMZz6vGWyMx UdGrRHwOnXDWJ3Lmu4WM9Yc8QdA1V3B3g5Uo2RKEhHvK8SlldzyJl9WJd9aux64ugyMa gSI7f8+qUyGXi8yMOV478OrJzK0gOi2tbuYuiqSTLxV/bNVsfwPmtBHYCR/5tOVJi/hp sPlVMbJgib86FtVAWRfnXGMN+VGDm6yKXUjIPGS+lB0e4Gk6ULwvb1450NZHZM4AOmW3 Ajd4RLU1b1q6RGYBkW77ZcBt2/SB926+sIoJN6qYAnpdLRzq8qRkaG8VdJjIHm0siqDw iHvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530G6A6+7sygNyFwqbKEvD7FqrwrbxA2mS0V/b2WstddtmcUpEeO ctBfqkocxicNpmBchcbNEcw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4DmM5vIOri51doW9GGz/WBeDxckeSvB6jKEk/vfeF/X+xEMXaVznOj/BTr8IXW7rgoJc3pA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a40f:: with SMTP id p15mr16841685ljn.440.1615287989262; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:06:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (176-93-29-60.bb.dnainternet.fi. [176.93.29.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f13sm1859103ljm.25.2021.03.09.03.06.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:06:28 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:06:27 +0200 Cc: Dave Taht , Pete Heist , ECN-Sane Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85081354-5D98-4EDF-8849-51F237F36252@gmail.com> References: To: "Holland, Jake" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7) Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] IETF 110 quick summary X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:06:31 -0000 > On 9 Mar, 2021, at 4:13 am, Holland, Jake wrote: >=20 > In the chat a person or 2 was surprised about the way > L4S will impact NECT competing traffic when competing in a queue. I think that was mostly Martin Duke. I caught up with him in the IETF = Gather space immediately afterwards and discussed this with him, one to = one, and he now seems to understand more clearly what we were = presenting. I was pleased to hear that he's also familiar with the = "risk matrix" formulation I presented. > We also applied that to L4S by first explaining that risk is the > product of severity and prevalence=E2=80=A6 And also, crucially, the concept of "externalised risk", ie. the = distinction between involved participants, interested observers, and = innocent bystanders. L4S has innocent bystanders (existing networks and = their users, who have no idea that L4S even exists nor how to = troubleshoot ECN related problems) incur most of the risk of Bad Things = happening. This is an "externalised risk" which is very difficult to = manage after the fact, and must be minimised to a much greater extent = than other risks. SCE ensures that innocent bystanders incur virtually no risk, in that = bad interactions only occur for poeple actually using SCE over an = SCE-enabled path, which is where mitigations can actually be practical = to employ - in the limit, by switching off SCE. This is much easier to = accept in a risk analysis. We didn't get to that slide, however, due to = shortage of time. - Jonathan Morton=