Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

I think both AccECN and RACK are appropriately "informational" 
references in the L4S drafts.

They might be important to TCP Prague code, but the in-network L4S 
pieces don't have a strict dependency.


On 11/11/2019 5:16 AM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
>
> So can you confirm that a TCP sender can use the L4S service without 
> implementing AccECN? I am asking again since there has been some 
> recent list discussion on that, e.g., given the points raised by 
> Sebastian. I am a bit lost here on what the future plan in L4S 
> actually is.
>
> And I still fail to understand why even the general idea of RACK 
> matters to AQM algorithms, traffic classifiers, or priority schedulers 
> for traffic with 1/p congestion control in a router. RACK has lots of 
> merits, but most of them are IMHO entirely unrelated to the vision of 
> L4S. I’d suggest to focus L4S on solving the key problems for traffic 
> with 1/p congestion control.
>