Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#4. rules)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

tsvwg list,
see [BB2]

On 13/05/2021 21:49, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> See [BB]
>
> On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> =================================================================
>> *4. Please be careful with the words here.*
>>
>> This text:
>> “It gives an incremental
>> migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
>> distinguish and isolate existing traffic that still follows the
>> Classic behaviour, to prevent it degrading the low queuing delay and
>> low loss of L4S traffic.This specification defines the rules that
>> L4S transports and network elements need to follow_to ensure they_
>> _neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic_.“
>> ⁃I suggest removing _"to ensure they_
>> _neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic"_
>>
>> =================================================================
>>
>>
>
> [BB] What is the concern here? Cutting off the sentence like this 
> disconnects its meaning from the previous sentence, which it was 
> intended to follow on from.
>
> Surely this is not a concern about making claims, because this 
> sentence describes the document's role: setting requirements.
> Perhaps you think the document defines more rules than just those to 
> do with harm. It does in some minor cases, but the core purpose of the 
> document is about preventing harm (mostly to latency).
>
> Proposed resolution: Pending further guidance.

[BB] Gorry took this off list to reduce noise, and explained that the 
concern was the word 'ensure' which has been resolved as below.
For the record:

“It gives an incremental
migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
distinguish and isolate existing traffic that still follows the
Classic behaviour, to prevent it degrading the low queuing delay and
low loss of L4S traffic.This specification defines the rules that
L4S transports and network elements need to follow_with the intention 
that L4S flows_
neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic."__


[GF] Yes: For me stating an "intention" would be fine. It's actually 
good to know why you should follow something.
"ensuring" is something quite different, and harder to prove.

Gorry

>
>
>
> Bob
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

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