[Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-05

[Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]>]

Hello Mike, it's great to hear from you.
Thanks for the valuable feedback.
It seems that your major concern is the discrepancy between the standards.

But I assure you that there is no conflict.
Because ITU-T did not allow math equations in the Requirements section,
I had to divide one equation into two or three sentences.
That is why it seems the number of requirements are different.
If you find any discrepancies, just let me know.

Y.3148 also deals with considerations for metadata, but it still is at an
academic level.
These two ITU-T standards are strictly based on the paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10261190

Best regards,
Jinoo




On Sat, Jan 3, 2026 at 4:09 AM Mike Blanche <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Jinoo and all,
>
> Although the C-SCORE approach may be an appropriate solution within the
> agreed taxonomy, I am still concerned about duplicating work already done
> elsewhere.
>
> What happens if the IETF draft diverges from the ITU Recommendation?
> Y.3129 makes 9 "requirements", whereas the current draft has 5 requirements
> and 3 conditions. There is already one discrepancy between the two
> documents in the description of the maths. This may lead to inconsistent or
> incompatible implementations depending on which document implementers
> follow.
>
> I see the new draft  (-06) focuses more on the necessary metadata. This is
> also already documented in ITU-T Y.3148, which covers metadata creation and
> updating procedures in depth. Again, how will it be ensured that this draft
> does not diverge from or conflict with the existing ITU Recommendation?
>
> The latest draft still does not cite either ITU Recommendation Y.3129 or
> Y.3148.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 at 00:08, Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello Mike, thanks for the comment regarding the work in ITU-T.
>> I understand your concern.
>>
>> Hello WG and Mike,
>>
>> The C-SCORE draft, as indicated in the version 6, will have the following
>> details in the future, once accepted as the WG draft.
>> 1) MPLS and IP specific protocol details: This includes the header
>> fields/formats, interactions between nodes and between control/data planes.
>> 2) Implementation issues regarding the priority queue, which is currently
>> required to sort the packets in FT orders: This includes an approximation
>> technique based on strict priority schedulers.
>>
>> Y.3129 is focused on the requirements and provides theoretical
>> justifications but the C-SCORE draft targets on the solution.
>> Some framework texts are covered in both. But they are necessary
>> information for readers in order to understand the design principles of the
>> solution in the C-SCORE draft.
>>
>> C-SCORE is not a new invention.
>> It is an outcome of the numerous researches conducted during late '90 ~
>> early '00s, which was the peak period of Internet research.
>> There are more than hundreds of papers that are related to the fair
>> queuing, after all.
>>
>> I believe it is worth being standardized by such virtues:
>> 1) flow isolation capability, which protects from other flows'
>> join/leave, bursts, or even malicious behaviours
>> 2) scalability due to its stateless nature
>> 3) flexibility from network asymmetry such as link capacity variations
>> and uneven propagation delays
>> 4) simple admission criteria, which allows incremental flow acceptance,
>> without modifying existing network setup
>> 5) small average delay due to work conserving nature,
>> just to mention a few. :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jinoo (on behalf of authors)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 12:10 AM Mike Blanche <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This proposal appears very similar to ITU-T Recommendation Y.3129, which
>>> I believe was developed by some of the same authors.
>>>
>>> https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3129-202404-I/en
>>>
>>> The abstract text of the I-D is virtually identical to the summary of
>>> Y.3129. In addition, significant parts of the content are very similar -
>>> e.g. parts of section 6.3 of the draft are word-for-word the same as parts
>>> of section 8 of the ITU-T Recommendation.
>>>
>>> The ITU-T Recommendation is missing from the draft's References section.
>>>
>>> I am unclear why we are considering duplicating work that appears to be
>>> already completed at the ITU.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 15:49, Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This email begins a 4-week adoption poll for:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing/05/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No IPR has been disclosed for this document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the
>>>>
>>>> list by the end of the day (any time zone) January 2nd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a reminder this document is part of the larger set of adoption calls
>>>>
>>>> of the documents discussed at IETF 124:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing/05
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding/18
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism/13
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf/09
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-detnet-glbf/06
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryoo-detnet-ontime-forwarding/04
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryoo-detnet-nscore/02
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> János (as Co-chair)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> detnet mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> detnet mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>
>>