Subject: [tsvwg] ECT(1) as output signal

From: Sebastian Moeller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 23:01:47 +0200

While I agree that the goals described in the L4S RFC drafts all sound support-worthy and attractive, looking at L4S's implemented reality left me somewhat less than impressed.
	As described in countless earlier mails to the list, L4S improvements over the status quo (e.g. SQM) are IMHO too small to justify its considerable side-effects. That is sad, because, 1/p congestion signaling with higher temporal fidelity sounds like a really nice thing to have (and something that will come sooner or later as the time seems ripe). 
But as it stands, for me L4S is too little (as compared to the status quo), too late (the effort was started 2016 with only this little to show for), at too high a cost (in undesirable side-effects). 
At this junction the question IMHO is not even so much whether to dedicate ECT(1) as input or output, but whether to waste any more (IETF) cycles on L4S until the implemented reality has caught up with the brave new latency world described in the drafts (only then the question ECT(1) as classification heuristic comes into play again).
But to commit to a decision today, I vote for ECT(1) as output as that is a step to get 1/p congestion signaling into the wider internet.

Regards
	Sebastian Moeller