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 46136A1A80E2 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 11:09:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blanche-org.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 2otCNJpYp4al for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 11:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oo1-xc2d.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2d]) (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 5C92CA1A80DB for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 11:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oo1-xc2d.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-656d9230cf2so6723372eaf.1 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2026 11:09:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blanche-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1767380979; x=1767985779; 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=B4RgvFGLo10dcDDUMVLTUaL0SZEtlIDo1SC1TPG9DuQ=; b=ErtchFKpM0zex13Anmp67+AdvMWcmmz3L6kPob4kyhNQ0TM2WAEj2wnxtY7q4BKrVF qE10qGYDDF3Y7Mal3Vj5sAjFAy7Ml1CzX+6wid5QpooUkm0dsHPdPyRHN+3E2n0PX6s+ QeCFKgWYdV7mqCGaklCHPzi22Kge//C2aKIcjkwYYU5+4+xvai2qyx6gw8YRzy4JhdMh w84qSDDbM3ZstVQBCFbJHimXyt0i8WOyJvkZJ0qx/QasiRElaUleV2eVBcQkPn7ZMrMr Ua9WozC6CYqcKge3ZADO/xcwHhljtg14rD0hDuFcCXc+2fdtXiI1TpFnSO7EekihDBkQ JKog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1767380979; x=1767985779; 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=B4RgvFGLo10dcDDUMVLTUaL0SZEtlIDo1SC1TPG9DuQ=; b=MRERzMEHhsUKuiLeyo1F0i6SZOigsIoW68n/RnXMueZr1TMUwjTVYW7Jx5/wz2etwr OXyFWOnO7+9Omiw+5jxy/QTbsN2K/Nh1z6/Xo0rvbCDo6vXEgMUaS563R5qjvxyjpd9z DsqE1p9KxsBhY3A8tjSkqmvsCy/m5e67xKoZDFi5z29s30Q0zOZ00S2kDMOMLtNHuj+7 2Hy6Xaj0fqK4eAOMYtZwPU6EkG+TffL+QbL5lxlTET7ltG7BdWDe7JZI6003vVpIhNbx UdvKBTd5P1aKnWfJWdbqZJrrTdLpt4Viz/zaA2jpYE3dtQVAEm53Q4sE26w8QJs8df54 p7xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwdK25IShR4ZCb7T57G9jHUlQo22+NrMk7GrornOO2Se/mlid4d vtnXJ94U7jk1xsneTPIjwnQNhdmguIbQmpPB8ww841LGAz1+LaNIY8gxtapkwFy283e1LMEQfQn sPlODjpIsOzEfAZWga8r2K5WGc17vOKL4Skwd/YxG2Q== X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX7wcETRPjnjC3p7SASIYaJ+d1xcIiqJguOe3hdBxUIBgbT+v1gdddV9J6nkv17 RTJlW4DpNJBX4Yl4Y+2bm1UeepR2B7Mo6Nia5PXnp8lCdG4hf0O6hxAyDAG99Q4pzXLXrg76dgP +gBMZq00j1HffcJ5k7P+7yrDKegYLocMfsi//U6LMkI3dYmhYyoAN/XxdBGX/z3+Ho/2wtqmzpY 1SKefVPPlmce2mkxqR1kzt1DKrdnY5Cm5TFbTwjKgs7W9sU7o6tHwWYVKE8V7EfBaxghgv0RqXu abriZcTt781nwOGaSG+1Z84F X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZ3j/cbgl/Gp1AYCfElFb6rEGtDKSJzLKpU3eQYMbY0cRzidmjOF33b0bJyVvXlwGShZxcu8qvDx2qywJNpbU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:827:b0:659:9a49:8f92 with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-65d0e9fe020mr18389156eaf.11.1767380979559; Fri, 02 Jan 2026 11:09:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Mike Blanche Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 19:09:02 +0000 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2qfQIGSHvqqfJYfN7f2BLGW3dgRDeKUpSXJPHSUt34Y4OWcApupqR7jf8E Message-ID: To: Jinoo Joung Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000783cb606476c738b" Message-ID-Hash: RP3CDHNONQAGLLPTOPCJ7USZTVZZV5D7 X-Message-ID-Hash: RP3CDHNONQAGLLPTOPCJ7USZTVZZV5D7 X-MailFrom: mike@blanche.org 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: --000000000000783cb606476c738b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 plane= s. > 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 t= he > 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 an= d > 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, 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 par= ts >> 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-queu= ing/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-queu= ing/05 >>> >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwa= rding/18 >>> >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mech= anism/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, >>> >>> 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 >> > --000000000000783cb606476c738b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jinoo and all,

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

What happens if the IETF draft diverge= s from the ITU Recommendation? Y.3129 makes 9 "requirements", whe= reas the current draft has 5 requirements and 3 conditions. There is alread= y one discrepancy between the two documents in the description of the maths= . This may lead to inconsistent or incompatible implementations depending o= n which document implementers follow.

I see the ne= w 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
--000000000000783cb606476c738b--