[tcpPrague] L4S scheduling conflicts (was: l4s - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Mirja, L4S chairs,

[Adding the tcpprague list - which contains the most important people 
who might have conflicts]

Here's my thinking behind the conflict list:
I put: "all Transport Area WGs, avtcore, iccrg", which resulted in the 
current conflicts list:

Conflicts to Avoid:
First Priority: avtcore, iccrg, alto, aqm, dtn, ippm, mptcp, nfsv4, rmcat, taps, tcpinc, tcpm, tram, tsvwg


We have a list of WGs that we have already said L4S will interact with 
in the problem statement:
* tsvwg, aqm, tcpm, rmcat, iccrg, avtcore

* mptcp will be added in the next draft of the problem-statement 
(omission pointed out by Marcelo)

I think we should keep the following:
* dtn: addressing a very similar problem of ultra-low loss, ultra-low 
latency, but currently in a very different way
* taps: l4s is disruptive to taps, because it offers a protocol that 
removes the queuing delay dimension from the requirements dilemma - 
potentially eventually for all transport protocols

That leaves the following that could be trimmed:
* alto, nfsv4, tcpinc, tram

I think tcpinc should stay as a second (or even first) priority 
conflict, because of all the tcp experts who would be conflicted.


Bob

On 11/06/16 19:11, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> I anyway want to trim the conflict list (because currently there is more stuff on than needed). I guess you as chair should be able to do that as well. Please do so if you want. But please do it soon if possible :-)
>
> Mirja
>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/