[Ecn-sane] IETF 110 quick summary

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 12:31 -0500, Steven Blake wrote:
> 
> > Their whole safety plan depends on the claim that Classic RFC 3168
> > ECN 
> > is not deployed (except in fq_codel on the edge; who cares? they can
> > patch their code). If that were the case, it would make more sense
> > for
> > them to try to move classic ECN to historic and redefine ECT(0) to
> > signal L4S traffic (ala DCTCP). 
> 
> Actually, that is the ideal outcome. ECT(0) signals ECT-Capable, ECT(1)
> and CE signal two levels of congestion. In other words, SCE everywhere.
> 
> 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).

Would you be willing to float that infront of them?  We have
discussed this internal between Jonothan, Pete and myself,
it is a viable solution.  And iirc our discussion resulted in
this ECT(0) being used to signal ECT or SCE treatment to be
rather low risk.

Right now any time we (SCE) try to float anything its shot down without
any due consideration or discussion, sadly.

> Regards,
> // Steve

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org