[ih] The history of the ECN debate?

[Dave Taht]

Based on some recent activity by the cable industry to repurpose the
last ECN bit for a DCTCP-like architectural thing (see the various l4s
and dualpi drafts over here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tsvwg/documents/ and traffic on the
tsvwg mailing list. 

my group (the bufferbloat.net ecn-sane project) ended counter-proposing
what we think is a cleaner architectural approach, at this ietf, rather
than doing L4S and dualpi, here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce-00

...

but forget all that. (there's debate on the bloat and tsvwg mailing
lists going on, it's fast and furious, needn't take place here)

I'd like to add a history section to the next related draft.

All I know is that the ECN "CE MUST == DROP" vs "CE should be an earlier signal
than drop" raged for years, with the ultimate recommendation in rfc3168
being CE MUST == DROP.

I came (after 7 years of the ecn-enabled fq_codel deployment and lots of
 tests, to also think we needed an earlier signal than drop too, in an
 AQM, but hadn't come up with a way to retrofit the idea in a backwards
 compatible way to rfc3168 until recently.

I know some of kk's story behind the ECN debates in 1990 or so, and
portions of van's, but not much else, and the RED thing dragged on for
years before it was standardized and it took til 2001 til rfc3168 was
published with its current interpretation.

I'd love to know more. Who was on each side? etc.