Subject: [tsvwg] FIRST-CUT Agenda for TSVWG in Prague

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:42:31 +0000

If you have asked to speak or think you need to speak please check the 
list below. Tha agenda is still to be finalised, and things may change - 
but if your talk is not listed somewhere, or you will not be in one of 
the sessions, please let the Chairs know asap.

Gorry, David and Wes.

----

IETF-104 tsvwg agenda
TSVWG at IETF 104 Prague

Monday, 25 March 2019, Afternoon Session II 1610-1810
Room Name: Congress Hall 1
           WG Chairs: Gorry Fairhurst, David Black, Wes Eddy (remote)

           Session I

           1. Agenda

           2. Chairs Update: (15 mins)
               RFC's completed:
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata (AD) Document Shepherd: Gorry

               Drafts beyond WGLC:
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-fecframe-ext (IESG) Document Shepherd: Wes
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme (IESG) Document Shepherd: Wes
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb  (IESG) Document Shepherd: David
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines (need reviewers + 
another WGLC)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim (need reviewers + 
another WGLC)

           2.1 IANA Registries
                No updates

           2.2 Chairs: Milestone updates (5 minutes)

           2.3 Chairs: Announcements and Heads-Up (5 minutes)
                MISSREF*R(1G) document in C238 has been overtaken by LE-PHB
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-rlc-fec-scheme - Chairs
               draft-roca-tsvwg-tinymt32 - Chairs

           2.4 Implementation (5 minutes)
               - Feedback from Hackathon

           2.5 Chairs: Other Drafts Related to TSVWG (5 minutes)
               draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6      - For info (Please 
discuss on INTAREA list)
               draft-eastlake-sfc-nsh-ecn-support - For info (Please 
discuss on sfc list
               draft-li-tsvwg-overlayed-path-segment-fwding  - For info 
(Discuss on tsvwg list)

           3.  Transport and Network

           3.1 Colin Perkins: Impact of Transport Header Encryption (15 
mins)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt

           3.2 Bob Briscoe: L4S ECN drafts (10 mins)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm

         4. New Work

            4.1  Greg White (remote): Identifying and Handling Non-Queue 
Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link  (15 mins)
              draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-01

           4.2  Anna Brunstom: Multipath DCCP (If time permits) (10 minutes)

           4.3  X.X  (10 minutes)

            4.4 X.X  (10 minutes)

           4.5  X.X  (10 minutes)

     Tuesday, 26 March 2019, Morning Session II 1120-1220
     Room Name: Congress Hall 3

           5.  Transport Protocols and Mechanisms

           5.1 Michael Tuexen: SCTP Working Group Drafts  (10 min)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp
               SCTP.bis - discussion of normative changes

           5.2 Tom Jones: Datagram PLPMTUD (10 mins)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud

           5.3 Joe Touch (proxy): UDP Options (15 mins)
               draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options

           6.  New Work (if time permits)

           6.1  Tommy Pauley HTTP/2 as a Transport, in Transport Area 
(15 minutes) - conflict in first agenda slot
           draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport - WG for final work to 
be determined

           6.2 XXX (10 mins)

  Note: The cutoff date for remote presentations is March 23, 2018

-------------- Requested made or talk being considerd ------------------

             Maxim
             draft-proshin-tsvwg-sctp-rtx-bit (requested - being considered)

             Greg White (remote):  Interactions between L4S and 
Differentiated Services (10 mins)
             draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv-02

            Thomas Fossati (remote) (linked to NQB)
             draft-fossati-tsvwg-lola

           UDP-Options Latency (requested)
           draft-qiang-tsvwg-udp-options-bounded-latency

           Dave That: Some congestion experienced (requested, linked to ECN)
           draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce

---

From: "Holland, Jake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 19:30:02 +0000

Hi Gorry,

I'm writing to express an interest in the SCE work.

I note that it's being considered but not committed on the
agenda, and I'd like to request its inclusion, if possible:

On 2019-03-12, 02:42, "Gorry Fairhurst" <[email-masked]> wrote:
-------------- Requested made or talk being considerd ------------------
Dave Taht: Some congestion experienced (requested, linked to ECN)
             draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce

(My sympathies on how full the agenda is, I know you have some tough
choices...)

The SCE draft is early work, but I find it especially interesting
for a few key reasons:

- it has backward-compatible semantics for ECT(1).  This comes
  with some possibly significant ramifications for incremental
  deployability.
- it seems to me there might be an interesting potential for
  responses that vary differently with the congestion control,
  rather than a response tuned to Reno's cwnd characteristic,
  as described in section 2.1 of the dualq draft [1].
  (this is especially relevant in light of some of the interest
  we've seen in some alternate congestion control proposals like
  BBR.)
- SCE has some advantages over L4S with regard to IPR constraints,
  which may be particularly relevant for AQMs in CPE devices based
  on OpenWRT or other open platforms. [2]

These seem to me like some major points in favor of supporting its
examination and consideration by the wg, (or perhaps tsvarea, in
case this raises questions about options like re-opening aqmwg or
something).

I also acknowledge there's a significant point in favor of not
bothering, which is the advanced state of the (incompatible) L4S
experiment proposal.

If there's wg consensus that L4S has become a de-facto standard and
it's therefore unproductive to look at incompatible proposals for
ECT(1) semantics, I'll withdraw my request.

However, I'd also like to register my vote against that position,
and argue that it may be useful to at least briefly discuss options
(or criteria) for running separate experiments based on each proposal.

If you do manage to find a way to fit this talk in, I'll also suggest
that it might be useful to arrange the schedule so that questions about
consensus on the L4S documents can easily be deferred until we get a
chance to hear about SCE, since they might have some bearing on one
another.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Jake

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-08#section-2.1
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled