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

[Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]>]

Hello Mike, thanks for the comments.
I fully understand your concerns.

Here is our plan.

Any duplicate parts will be removed.
Only a couple of sentences, regarding the philosophy of the stateless fair
queuing, will remain in 6.1 Framework.
Without the consideration for readers' ease of understanding, we will just
refer to the ITU-T standards.
The readers should open up the ITU-T standards for complete understanding
of the technology.

However, the metadata enhancement (two instead of three) will be stated, as
an option, with clearly stating that this is a deviation from ITU-T
standards.
Of course, the original three metadata can be also carried by default.

If this plan suits your requirements, please let me know.
We will gladly revise accordingly.

Best regards,
Jinoo (on behalf of authors)


On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 6:14 PM Mike Blanche <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Jinoo and authors,
>
> Thanks for the reply - comments inline:
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 02:06, Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Mike, for your careful consideration and comments.
>>
>> We will try our best to align this work with ITU-T standards.
>> Please see our answers in-line marked JJ.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jinoo (on behalf of authors)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 9:00 PM Mike Blanche <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jinoo, authors, and the WG,
>>>
>>> Thank you Jinoo and the authors for updating this draft.
>>>
>>> I think the "meat" of what is new in the proposal is in 6.3.2.1 (IPv6
>>> header format) and 6.3.2.2 (MPLS label format), and possibly 6.3.3, the
>>> admission procedure.
>>>
>>  JJ: Right, and Section 7 (Approximate C-SCORE) too.
>>
>>>
>>> Most of the other content appears to summarize or restate what is in
>>> ITU-T Y.3129 and Y.3148, albeit with discrepancies.
>>>
>>> For example Section 4 appears to be a condensed version of section 6 of
>>> ITU-T Y.3129, although it still appears to include specifications already
>>> defined in Y.3129, e.g.
>>> section 4 of this I-D: "Instead of deriving a new FT at each core node,
>>> we will specify a method of deriving the FT at downstream nodes by using
>>> the initial FT calculated at the entrance node."
>>> section 6 of Y.3129: "This Recommendation presents requirements and a
>>> framework for generation and update of FT..."
>>>
>>
>> JJ: To provide necessary context for the reader, this draft retains the
>> core principles of Y.3129.
>>
>
> Mike: I think it is fine to briefly restate the broad principles of the
> already standardised approach as an introduction, but the majority of the
> text in this I-D repeats or summarizes Y.3129, rather than referring to it.
>
>
>> Section 6.1 has five requirements but Y.3129 has nine.
>>>
>>
>> JJ: Right. But the context of the requirements remains identical. For
>> example, the first two requirements in Y.3129 states:
>>
>> R1: The entrance node of a flow is required to manage the flow state.
>> R2: The entrance node is required to determine initial FTs for packets
>> according to the flow state.
>>
>> These requirements are summarized as Requirement 1 below in the draft.
>>
>> Requirement 1: In the entrance node, it is REQUIRED to obtain the FTs
>> with the following
>> equation. 0 denotes the entrance node of the flow under observation.
>> F0(p) = max{F0(p-1), A0(p)}+L(p)/r.
>>
>> Overall, the texts in Y.3129 are high-level, while those in the draft are
>> specific.
>> If you think the texts for the requirements should be identical, I will
>> gladly change them.
>>
>
> Mike: it is better to refer to Y.3129 than to copy it word for word. What
> happens if Y.3129 is updated or corrected?
>
>
>> The equations in section 6.2 include clock discrepancy adjustment which
>>> appears absent from the equivalent equations in section 8.2 of Y.3129.
>>>
>>
>> JJ: We will add the equation in the future version.
>> However, this version has been refined for brevity, retaining only the
>> critical elements necessary.
>>
>
> Mike: do you mean that Y.3129 will be updated to include the clock
> discrepancy adjustment? Or that this draft will be changed to match Y.3129?
> This I-D should be consistent with the already published standards.
>
>
>> The metadata proposal appears to conflict with the ITU Recommendations.
>>> The I-D suggests two pieces of metadata to be carried, Fh(p) and L/r.
>>> However Y.3129 and Y.3148 refers to three pieces of metadata, Fh(p), L and
>>> r.
>>>
>>
>> JJ: What is required to fulfill the requirements and framework is the
>> metadata L/r. Making two (L and r) to one (L/r) can be seen as an
>> improvement.
>> However, if necessary we will specify both cases in the draft.
>>
>
> Mike: The ITU-T metadata standard specifies three pieces of metadata. This
> is the published standard. Having the I-D use (possibly) two pieces of
> metadata conflicts with the standard. If the approach in Y.3129 and Y.3148
> is now considered inefficient, then these standards should be updated.
> (Although, I don't know where that leaves someone who has implemented a
> standards-compliant implementation of either of those Recommendations).
>
>
>> Section 6.3.4 is almost word-for-word identical to Y.3129 section 8.4,
>>> with the difference being the I-D suggests writing two pieces of metadata
>>> whereas Y.3129 suggests three.
>>>
>>> Section 6.3.5 similarly to Y.3129 section 8.5.
>>>
>>> Section 6.3.6 similarly to Y.3129 section 8.6.
>>>
>>
>> JJ: Right. These are the critical elements and the summarized texts.
>>
>
> Mike: They are word for word identical (apart from the discrepancies
> regarding the number of pieces of metadata carried). Why are we not
> referring to the existing standard?
>
>
>
> My overall issue is... imagine I'm trying to build a standards-compliant
> implementation. I am reading two ITU standards, and one IETF standard, but
> they differ, or are described differently. Which do I follow?
>
> Two ITU standards already explain the overall approach. The new work in
> this I-D should specify the IPv6 and MPLS formatting for the metadata
> defined in Y.3129 and Y.3148.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> If I have misunderstood any of the above please let me know, it's
>>> entirely possible.
>>>
>>> We must ensure the work aligns with existing standards. If we refer to
>>> those standards we should not seek to recreate them in our drafts for risk
>>> of introducing confusion.
>>>
>>> The abstract and introduction should also be updated to reflect what is
>>> "new" in this proposal.
>>>
>>
>> JJ: OK. We will update them as suggested.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all for your continued efforts here.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 14:28, Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jinoo, Authors,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the updates!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prior to publication as a WG document, we ask that you add a section
>>>> that describes the relationship of this work to the ITU-T work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Lou and Janos
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2026 12:11 PM
>>>> *To:* Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc:* Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield=[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll:
>>>> joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-05
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Chairs, Scott, and WG,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing is revised
>>>> and uploaded as 07.
>>>>
>>>> In line with Scott's suggestions, the new version includes:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Abbreviations
>>>>
>>>> 2) New references including RFC8200, MPLS-related IETF drafts, and two
>>>> ITU-T Recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Minimized 6.1. Framework and other content that are duplicative with
>>>> ITU-T Recommendations. Only those that are essential to understand the
>>>> whole picture are left.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Elaborated 6.3.1 Metadata; 6.3.2. Header format; 6.3.3. Admission
>>>> control; 7. Approximate C-SCORE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, the methods for carrying metadata with IPv6 and
>>>> MPLS MNA Sub-stack are described in detail.
>>>>
>>>> 6.3.3 delineates two distinct admission control methodologies,
>>>> providing for the selection of either procedure based on specific
>>>> implementation requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Section 7. Approximate C-SCORE specifies the nodal architecture and
>>>> algorithms to approximate C-SCORE with rotating strict priority schedulers.
>>>>
>>>> The E2E latency bound, in a complete math expression, is also given.
>>>>
>>>> This approximation serves to alleviate the sorting bottleneck intrinsic
>>>> to C-SCORE,
>>>>
>>>> bypassing the intensive priority queue operations while maintaining
>>>> near-optimal alignment with theoretical Finish Time objectives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jinoo (on behalf of authors)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ====================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Draft draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-07.txt is now
>>>> available. It is a work item of the Deterministic Networking (DETNET)
>>>> WG of
>>>> the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>    Title:   Latency Guarantee with Stateless Fair Queuing
>>>>    Authors: Jinoo Joung
>>>>             Jeong-dong Ryoo
>>>>             Taesik Cheung
>>>>             Yizhou Li
>>>>             Peng Liu
>>>>    Name:    draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-07.txt
>>>>    Pages:   23
>>>>    Dates:   2026-02-20
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>
>>>>    This document specifies the framework and the operational procedure
>>>>    for deterministic networking with a set of rate based work conserving
>>>>    packet schedulers.  The framework guarantees end-to-end (E2E) latency
>>>>    bounds to flows.  The schedulers in core nodes do not need to
>>>>    maintain flow states.  Instead, the entrance node of a flow marks an
>>>>    ideal service completion time according to a fluid model, called
>>>>    Finish Time (FT), of a packet in the packet header.  The subsequent
>>>>    core nodes update the FT by adding the delay factor, which is a
>>>>    function of the flow and the nodes.  The packets in the queue of the
>>>>    scheduler are served in the ascending order of FT.  This mechanism is
>>>>    called the stateless fair queuing.  The result is that flows are
>>>>    isolated from each other almost perfectly.  The latency bound of a
>>>>    flow depends only on the flow's intrinsic parameters such as the
>>>>    maximum burst size and the service rate, except the link capacities
>>>>    and the maximum packet length among other flows sharing each output
>>>>    link with the flow.  Furthermore, this document specifies an
>>>>    approximation of stateless fair queuing implemented via a strict
>>>>    priority (SP) scheduler.  This approach maintains a guaranteed end-
>>>>    to-end (E2E) latency bound.
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing/
>>>>
>>>> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-07
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>
>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-07
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>>>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:52 PM Janos Farkas <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very mush for your guidelines! Much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jinoo,
>>>>
>>>> Great to see agreement.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please revise the draft along the guidelines provided? Once
>>>> updated per the discussion below, we can publish it as a WG document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Lou and Janos
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2026 4:23 PM
>>>> *To:* Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield=[e-mail]>
>>>> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll:
>>>> joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-05
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Scott,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
>>>> I deeply appreciate your efforts to resolve this issue in a fair and
>>>> reasonable manner.
>>>> I agree with your proposed action.
>>>>
>>>> I have answered your guidelines in-line marked with JJ. Please take a
>>>> look.
>>>>
>>>> In short, there is a clear gap between the ITU-T work and the IETF
>>>> document.
>>>> While ITU-T work focuses on the requirements and framework, the IETF
>>>> document will elaborate on IP/MPLS specific information for deployment,
>>>> including header fields and formats, protocols for admission control and
>>>> time-difference compensation.
>>>> It will also include implementation details for approximating fair
>>>> queuing with a strict priority scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks and best regards,
>>>> Jinoo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 6:11 AM Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield=
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as a liaison manager between the IETF and ITU-T, it is
>>>> important to note a few guidelines.  Following this discussion, I observe
>>>> there is concern that there is work being duplicated.  In order to make all
>>>> parties comfortable I would suggest the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Potential Action:
>>>>
>>>> The process of “gap analysis” is used a lot in the ITU-T to ensure new
>>>> work items do not duplicate work already done by the industry recognized
>>>> center of competence.  The reverse is true as well.  I would want to see
>>>> the gap that the IETF is filling here and how it augments or modifies what
>>>> the ITU-T has already done.  If there are modifications to the ITU-T work
>>>> needed, I would like to see the authors plans to progress that work in the
>>>> ITU-T.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JJ: There is a clear gap, as I stated in the main text of this mail.
>>>> The IETF draft will augment the ITU-T work. There is no need to modify the
>>>> ITU-T work. It serves as a solid foundation for the IETF draft. In my
>>>> opinion, the implementation specific issues in the IETF draft are not
>>>> appropriate for standardization in ITU-T.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guidelines To Note:
>>>> - It is appropriate for the IETF to take ITU-T work and augment it as
>>>> long as the augmentation is in the scope and mandate of IETF.  Also, the
>>>> work should not fundamentally change (or be backwards incompatible).  It is
>>>> imperative that the IETF document be clear what ITU-T work it is using and
>>>> properly reference the work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JJ: I believe the IP/MPLS issues, protocols, and implementation
>>>> specifications are well within the scope of IETF. While the work proceeds
>>>> in IETF, no changes will be introduced. The ITU-T works will be referenced
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - If there is anything being added in the IETF that requires a
>>>> fundamental change to the ITU-T work, that work needs to be
>>>> liaised/coordinated with the ITU-T.  If what the IETF is doing is
>>>> explaining how to use the ITU-T work in the context of IETF (profiles etc.)
>>>> that is ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JJ: Again, the ITU-T work won't be changed. The IETF draft will explain
>>>> how to use the fundamentals described in the ITU-T work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - If the IETF work is really changing the math, that should be
>>>> coordinated too.  If the ITU-T work missed something, or is not appropriate
>>>> for the IETF use-case, again, coordination is needed.  Since (at least)
>>>> some of the authors are the same in both groups, this is the best way to
>>>> gain consensus by ensuring the process of each group is followed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JJ: I definitely agree with you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find coordination and cooperation is best handled when people work
>>>> together and have people that attend each organization and follow the
>>>> processes of the organization when progressing the documents.  Liaison can
>>>> be used, but they tend to be slow.  The IETF DetNet mailing list is the
>>>> proper place to have this discussion especially if there are participants
>>>> in this working group that need clarity to ensure work is not duplicated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -scott.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing-05
>>>>
>>>> Jinoo Joung <[e-mail]> Fri, 02 January 2026 22:16 UTCShow
>>>> header
>>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ea4920SPZmgxU-0npKrss00EI7Y/>
>>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>    - [Detnet] WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-stateless…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Q2JXJlfyvd-WzGkkqtRfCr3yHOs/>  Janos
>>>>    Farkas
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/tqDrY-nmIDalPRGf5OMD0_xWvOU/>  Mike
>>>>    Blanche
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/S51eXeGt_UcT_1cVqUZrUxejR3U/>
>>>>      song.xueyan2
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/3MdTx2InCj1rbv31dZrqBFzfio8/>  Jinoo
>>>>    Joung
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BE3XHigD2aMc8-NgWPZhBWRG_ic/>  Yizhou
>>>>    Li
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/l6I5fRbyBp1QQZEYv-4sSuSve_E/>
>>>>      유연철
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/7ksa7vAMmQ3sehku5DO8LfONpPg/>  Jeong-dong
>>>>    Ryoo
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/2GqbxqQFYw2wYOv1c8UnF3alGns/>
>>>>      xiong.quan
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/_G3i5tAVEVx2ptaZ5waatbMJo6Y/>
>>>>      정태식
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/FFbeeIUbtYnhRQ04YDfa13_3hrc/>  Mike
>>>>    Blanche
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Ea4920SPZmgxU-0npKrss00EI7Y/>  Jinoo
>>>>    Joung
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/24tmXTeBKDecp-cQi4rhK1H0jGk/>
>>>>      [e-mail]
>>>>    - [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: joung-detnet-state…
>>>>    <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/AhQOorY02WR6zJowkcLrXGPqk-E/>  Xuesong
>>>>    Geng
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>