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 164913B2A4 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 06:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8103AB4; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:06:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1565172368; bh=qppBcLKN5F/Zq5piF3PnkcXWEVuf9+e3LzEocKipdi4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=1Zks0GUShdFuboYImBfFf0rBbXWx9YE5NcD2FZKM3LhIabcAqNnaGfBFEUzMQkItT UYW8FDCsQSG/EHSCTb00WbhFXFUKmstdLjtlMlxL9TPXlGscD2Df20jucCDE2cQ4FL 4eN/EqdUbQEXp+wP1cSGjNhlF1ibj06EeNOk/CMA= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD12B1; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:06:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:06:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Jonathan Morton cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" , Bob Briscoe , "Black, David" , "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Dave Taht , "De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <364514D5-07F2-4388-A2CD-35ED1AE38405@akamai.com> <87ef2myqzv.fsf@taht.net> <4B02593C-E67F-4587-8B7E-9127D029AED9@gmx.de> <34e3b1b0-3c4c-bb6a-82c1-89ac14d5fd2c@bobbriscoe.net> <77522c07-6f2e-2491-ba0e-cbef62aad194@bobbriscoe.net> <619092c0-640f-56c2-19c9-1cc486180c8b@bobbriscoe.net> <3A454B00-AEBC-48B6-9A8A-922C66E884A7@gmx.de> <21E40F44-2151-4565-970E-E1CEBE975036@gmx.de> <58F8052E-A56B-4E1F-8E1D-CBE75A0F7332@akamai.com> <9C42D7E8-734A-4620-B95B-5FFDDF1D3D95@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: [Ecn-sane] [tsvwg] Compatibility with singlw queue RFC3168 AQMs 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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:06:10 -0000 On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I realise this is problematic and gets in the way of progress but the > Internet is a messy place and we need to do mitigation of pathological > cases where new and old don't always play nice together. I forgot to also mention that I still would like to see more testing of the benefits of removing the ordering requirement on some traffic. Having been exposed to different medias over the past 25 years I've seen numerous Head-of-Line blocking problems my fair share of time and removing this ordering requirement would free up some medias to deliver some packets even though other packets are being re-transmitted and delivered later. I also encourage if we can reach overall consensus that transports should take into account that packets can be re-ordered and what timescales would be acceptable for this to happen (1ms? 10ms? 100ms? Even more? Less? Not at all?) -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se