Return-Path: X-Original-To: detnet@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: detnet@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF30A1B5556 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:16:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=smu-ac-kr.20230601.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HFTnlfC-vNY9 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEA4DA1B5545 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-37b96cbd875so102945831fa.3 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2026 14:16:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smu-ac-kr.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1767392169; x=1767996969; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=f+LMEdzRkLjLNBhas9cgc/QhMf4nD4r9JKC2owNFt+U=; b=o7izLml7iLOwtGOA1MBPcGxb1C+AVy+K5yH+uEvEDmeWv+nZH2KD7zupToCMrFed/r CUzZa1PbiwE1eJTJPZMjXX05Ofw9yaVP2LAaTVleubcMdjKqXKcGF8OVKassWfYv8DVO RaR4PmH6Jx0Ou/iafz0uMPMDeWsKzGFv0KpM9F6yl55jvEffDkYls4AbjExavdn86dNw Vw0u2+fTLAYPBlJDEoyWBttyO0BL2oOrAU4DPJq4x0Cb/SbFl8QO9eJoS3Wzbs4kPKG5 br+5ejFEs43wVuaoDJoVcAYN4mOoRbZSZN612TZsVVaPkfAlclGZf8lXcnyXANb/8Fgv A4eQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1767392169; x=1767996969; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=f+LMEdzRkLjLNBhas9cgc/QhMf4nD4r9JKC2owNFt+U=; b=Wv0AmmI2j42HJW6aXpi2G3A/f/2J1PDW2y3g+5vD6mBtXHUAtALSQOIzbUvjDxsM0C aWV6OdmMR+Tz+KtaEf2NMxGL9qkiPHu0SsJgbnRsu1WgprFbNhPArHsJQhYsOrvaja2D tdJYlV9xZpCQ9H+q5ByGFM/6qTEuC5sTjnjFV1JUvnaXGkg4OJ32JXHkLXycDv4UotJq X6FH//RjVJ9dCkMgW1T3Ptbrg3+VjaKdoexOkKDhc5dSH6U20UeT3RQnd3neW/tQvNwz j4YKnnyF6fWCmPifM1J+dgQdDWNzc2kPBZbkVtoZU8Snw0b2qUJv7Orf7M/Y1SZvHzh3 keFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzNevWdrpJvsTKDZNTN/Au+pDU45yDXPWpmro/+TIqzo86OrcbW 0chMNJLutaflICEef/u9G2gLSdtUt+VOWe0pSWzh2iJf/ogp+IhZzSKVUOul2gUqvWE0Wj9TmeF yUV8zGPblVRL+triBD35X1/9UkOV3IjZCynMPkAlNIYB3yULqIXr8dZE= X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX6E4JSifO3xhAJ9x8UqTdpGAPt1TwwfGRh5vspHhHl8B8biv/c12PtUzzbsqW2 fhRPm/1/9VWk4Kj2WrC6oKFxz0zb928gMY4tv/2SG63z/DrD+wI9KgzMFnBiLLlqMpZHwJv92An PP5sz8Om3ZGiGFIy/Y9TMBYaJ4o7m7s/n5zIJXJHlY3HRqAKIu8NptZgBYvL4FXriaSgArWz2ag 1ycHpraaII0yMvq260w9dLH2/df0U6J040+l55jQP5sGZnNnwApAhMO4O3cGT0UKmmKovAsDw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEFAfamjQoFksjb6IE9Djk9oODUZX2DW1XadIzFbpx3PhdDl5EqKGstEbAVdENztVx0b4OD/BKVF9rH4UOLsvU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:be10:0:b0:37a:2f61:5f19 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-38121552988mr139020461fa.2.1767392168531; Fri, 02 Jan 2026 14:16:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jinoo Joung Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 07:15:58 +0900 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2pJHapciv0TKqQ8nbP6_OllYcAWtN4GuhWANpAPoGPUp2fYINznfrqyO9Q Message-ID: To: Mike Blanche Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000626ada06476f0e4a" Message-ID-Hash: IJ3TZDULSALPIPGDZWLLOZ5Y7QVEDSU6 X-Message-ID-Hash: IJ3TZDULSALPIPGDZWLLOZ5Y7QVEDSU6 X-MailFrom: jjoung@smu.ac.kr X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-detnet.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: DetNet WG , DetNet Chairs X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDetnet=5D_Re=3A_WG_adoption_poll=3A_joung-detnet-stateless-fair?= =?utf-8?q?-queuing-05?= List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000626ada06476f0e4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=AFAM Mike Blanche = 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 requiremen= ts > 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 i= s > also already documented in ITU-T Y.3148, which covers metadata creation a= nd > updating procedures in depth. Again, how will it be ensured that this dra= ft > 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 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 followin= g >> 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 plan= es. >> 2) Implementation issues regarding the priority queue, which is currentl= y >> required to sort the packets in FT orders: This includes an approximatio= n >> 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=E2=80=AFAM Mike Blanche >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This proposal appears very similar to ITU-T Recommendation Y.3129, whic= h >>> 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 pa= rts >>> 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 >> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This email begins a 4-week adoption poll for: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-que= uing/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 call= s >>>> >>>> of the documents discussed at IETF 124: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-que= uing/05 >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forw= arding/18 >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mec= hanism/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/0= 4 >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryoo-detnet-nscore/02 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> J=C3=A1nos (as Co-chair) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> detnet mailing list -- detnet@ietf.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to detnet-leave@ietf.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> detnet mailing list -- detnet@ietf.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to detnet-leave@ietf.org >>> >> --000000000000626ada06476f0e4a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Mike, it's great to hear from you= .
Thanks for the valuable feedback.
It seems that your major = concern is the discrepancy=C2=A0between the standards.

But I assure you that there is no conflict.
Because=C2= =A0ITU-T did not allow math equations in the Requirements section, I=C2=A0h= ad to divide one equation=C2=A0into two or three sentences.
That = is why it seems the number of requirements are different.
If you = find any discrepancies, just=C2=A0let me know.

Y.3= 148 also deals with considerations for metadata, but it still is at an acad= emic level.
These two ITU-T standards are strictly based on the p= aper: https://iee= explore.ieee.org/document/10261190

Best regard= s,
Jinoo



=
On Sat, Jan 3, 2026 at 4:09=E2=80=AFAM Mike Blanche <mike-ietf@blanche.org> wrote:<= br>

Hi Jinoo and all,

Although th= e C-SCORE approach may be an appropriate solution within the agreed taxonom= y, I am still concerned about duplicating work already done elsewhere.

What happens if the IETF draft diverges from the ITU R= ecommendation? Y.3129 makes 9 "requirements", whereas the current= draft has 5 requirements and 3 conditions. There is already one discrepanc= y 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=C2=A0 (-06) focuses more on the necessary metadata. This is also already document= ed in ITU-T Y.3148, which covers metadata creation and updating procedures = in depth.=C2=A0Again, how will it be ensured that=C2=A0this 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 <jjoung@smu.ac.kr> wrote:
=
Hello Mike, thanks for the comment regarding the work in ITU-T.I understand your concern.

Hello WG and Mike,

The C-S= CORE 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 pr= otocol details: This includes the header fields/formats, interactions betwe= en nodes and between control/data planes.
2) Implementation issues regar= ding the priority queue, which is currently required to sort the packets in= FT orders: This includes an approximation technique based on strict priori= ty schedulers.

Y.3129 is focused on the requirements and provides th= eoretical justifications but the C-SCORE draft targets on the solution.
= Some framework texts are covered in both. But they are necessary informatio= n 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 o= utcome of the numerous researches conducted during late '90 ~ early = 9;00s, which was the peak period of Internet research.
There are more t= han hundreds of papers that are related to the fair queuing, after all.

I believe it is worth being standardized by such virt= ues:
1) flow isolation capability, which protects from other flows' = join/leave, bursts, or even malicious behaviours
2) scalability due to i= ts stateless nature
3) flexibility from network asymmetry such as link c= apacity variations and uneven propagation delays
4) simple admission cri= teria, which allows incremental flow acceptance, without modifying existing= network setup
5) small average delay due to work conserving nature,
= just to=C2=A0mention a few. :-)

Best re= gards,
Jinoo (on behalf of authors)



On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 12:10=E2=80=AFAM = Mike Blanche <mike-ietf@blanche.org> 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<= /div>

The abstract text of the I-D is virtually identica= l to the summary of Y.3129. In addition, significant parts of the content a= re very similar - e.g.=C2=A0parts of section 6.3 of the draft are word-for-= word the same as parts of section 8 of the ITU-T Recommendation.=C2=A0

The ITU-T Recommendation is missing from the draft'= ;s References section.

I am unclear why we are con= sidering duplicating work that appears to be already completed at the ITU.= =C2=A0

Best regards,

Mike=

On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 15:49, Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=3D40ericsson.com@= dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Hi,

=C2=A0<= /span>

This email begins a 4= -week adoption poll for:

=C2=A0<= /span>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-= fair-queuing/05/

=C2=A0<= /span>

No IPR has been discl= osed for this document.

=C2=A0<= /span>

Please voice your sup= port or technical objections to adoption on the

list by the end of th= e day (any time zone) January 2nd.

=C2=A0<= /span>

As a reminder this do= cument is part of the larger set of adoption calls

of the documents disc= ussed at IETF 124:

=C2=A0<= /span>

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-f= air-queuing/05

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-b= ased-forwarding/18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-packet-tim= eslot-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

=C2=A0<= /span>

Thank you,<= /u>

J=C3=A1n= os (as Co-chair)

=C2=A0<= /span>

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list -- detnet@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to detnet-leave@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list -- detnet@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to detnet-leave@ietf.org
--000000000000626ada06476f0e4a--