Re: [Ecn-sane] IETF 110 quick summary

["Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>]

Sorry Jonathan, I think I didn't convey some context properly...

On 3/9/21, 11:09 AM, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Mar, 2021, at 8:44 pm, Holland, Jake <jholland@akamai.com> wrote:
>> 
>> …classic ECN traffic will not respond as quickly as L4S…
>
>I know it wasn't you making this claim, Jake, but I have to point out that it's completely false.  Classic ECN transports actually respond *more* quickly to a CE mark than L4S transports.

Here I meant to talk about an SCE-style low-congestion signal (in
either 1->0 or 0->1 direction), which would be ignored by a classic
endpoint but which a high-fidelity endpoint would respond to.

So I'm not referring to a CE mark here, but rather an SCE mark, as
I thought Steve was proposing with this bit:

>> Maybe that is an argument that you can throw at them: if it is safe to
>> ignore classic ECN, might as well move straight to SCE with non-ECT
>> traffic shunted off to a separate queue(s).

Sorry for any confusion there, I'm not in favor of talking past each
other and I think we probably agree here if I've understood correctly.

What I was trying to say is that an SCE response (specifically
including an L4S-using-SCE response, though I think you had some
intriguing alternate ideas to reduce the effect) would be faster
than a classic response that ignores SCE and waits for a CE.

I do agree with your explanation that a classic CC responds faster to
a CE mark than TCP Prague, that's just not what I was trying to talk
about.

-Jake