[Ecn-sane] [Cake] l4s kernel submission

[Rodney W. Grimes]

Jonathan, etc,

I went fishing down the rabbit hole and think I see
how the masses have been brainwashed about L4S, at
least partially.  It might be worth spending some
effort to "debunk" the claims in the paper:
	https://bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_journal_draft20190726.pdf

I am EXTREAMLY concerned about the following miss leading
assertions by the authors:
	"
BEGIN-QUOTE
V.  DEPLOYMENTCONSIDERATIONS
  A.  Standardization Requirements
    The IETF has taken on L4S standardization work [13]. [19]
    considers the pros and cons of various candidate identifiers for
    L4S  and  finds  that  none  are  without  problems,  but  proposes
    ECT(1)  as  the  least  worst.  As  a  consequence,  the  IETF  has
    updated the ECN standard at the IP layer (v4 and v6) to make
    the ECT(1) codepoint available for experimentation [7].

 [7]   BLACK, D.   Relaxing  Restrictions  on  Explicit  Congestion  Notification
      (ECN) Experimentation.  Request for Comments RFC8311, RFC Editor,Jan. 2018
END-QUOTE


My problem with this "claim" is that it is made in the name of
the IETF, which is not true.  Bob Briscoe and others are who
are making these claims, the IETF has NOT yet spoken formally
on L4S.

Though RFC8311 DOES relax the restrictions, Bob etc al, make it
sound as if L4S is a done deal.

Regards,
Rod

> > On 15 Oct, 2021, at 1:17 am, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> You can also subscribe to Linux lists by importing the mails from Lore,
> >> as one of the replies in the thread above pointed out. Been meaning to
> >> switch to that myself, but haven't gotten around to it yet...
> > 
> > I attempted to subscribe again, nothing happened.
> > 
> > figuring out lore... is too much work for today. I'd rather hammer
> > small things into oblivion on my boat.
> > 
> > please feel free to pass along my comments and the sce teams findings
> > into that thread.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/308C88C6-D465-4D50-8038-416119A3535C@gmail.com/
> 
> I haven't yet posted a link to the WGLC Objections document.  I will if it seem s necessary to do so.
> 
>  - Jonathan Morton
> _______________________________________________
> Ecn-sane mailing list
> Ecn-sane at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane
> 
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org