Re: [tsvwg] start of WGLC on L4S drafts: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, GF Issues seen in WGLC

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

I have reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-19 in WGLC.

I think this draft provides methods that address an important need - to 
provide techniques to control end to end latency. I provided a detailed 
review of a recent previous version of this ID, and the issues I found 
then have been addressed. Thanks editors. I have checked this version 
and found the three additional issues below.

I therefore would support *as an individual* progression of this draft 
for publication as EXP.

Best wishes,

Gorry
(as individual in tsvwg)

P.S. I also have a small number of editorial NiTs that I will send 
separately to the list.
---

ISSUE 1: To-Do
   “Once disabled, all packets of all ECN codepoints will
    receive Classic treatment and ECT(1) packets MUST be treated as if
    they were {ToDo: Not-ECT / ECT(0) ?}.”
- This RFC-2119 statement is incomplete.
- This issue needs to be discussed.

---
ISSUE 2: Appendix A.
This appendix is informative, and as such I think we should be careful 
to not imply this as expressing requirements.

However, the current text contains several lines mentioning 
“requirements”, including the title!

  - is it possible to express this differently and avoid any ambiguity 
as the document receives more review?
I could suggest a few small changes which would seem to me resolve this 
issue:
The title likely needs to be renamed, because it creates most of the 
problem: “The 'Prague L4S Recommendations’ or “The 'Prague L4S Design 
Recommendations’, or similar.
Also these small number of specific lines seem to need careful 
rewording, e.g.:
/safety improvements (requirements)/safety improvements ()/
/implementation of the requirements./implementation of these 
recommendations./
/Requirements for Scalable Transport Protocols/Features for Scalable 
Transport Protocols/
/The requirement is written/This is written/
/Similarly to the requirement in Appendix A.1.4 this 
requirement/Similarly to Appendix A.1.4, this/
/Having said all the above, the approach recommended in the requirements 
is to monitor/Having said all the above, the approach recommended is to 
monitor/
---

ISSUE 3: References
-Please confirm the intended status of:
[I-D.briscoe-docsis-q-protection]

> -----
>
> On 29.07.21, 18:18, "tsvwg on behalf of Wesley 
> Eddy"<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>     This message is starting a combined working group last call on 3 
> of the
>     L4S drafts:
>
>     - 
> Architecture:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch/
>
>     - DualQ:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled/
>
>     - ECN 
> ID:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id/
>
>     The WGLC will last through 4 weeks from today, and then we'll see 
> what
>     to do next.  Please submit any comments you have on these to the 
> TSVWG
>     list in that timeframe.
>
>     The chairs are considering a possible virtual interim following the
>     close in order to work through feedback received.
>
>     The work on the L4S operational guidance draft is continuing in
>     parallel, but that draft is not being last called yet.
>
>