Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction

Jonathan Morton <> Wed, 05 February 2020 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D54912008C for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:10:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qg0gL7LrZY6h for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE6312004E for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y19so1573950lfl.9 for <>; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:10:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B4bPMwjYn/cwLfzlcaBXUEz6JuAQyWa2em2/XIMXY70=; b=V8d5QutByWi1CwSNkvhfNZWd7ZCnuHZQu7hPct7JKc3ChfrUQg1Ix3wQCsWwp1j+/A kOi3eaMxcBXKgDamj+kXHhU9VwU8yjWvVvE4s5hArcZpQt8MS0AalHuuA0lzhjnP97kB fhgg0ldw5wEJNmrpYaAfWhBWgqCTVJH0uY4B7OVrVSsyIkJ2PBfPnEv47YDjKhC5xFkj 148Eqm/TT2nez3BPHoQ/Dn7Ew3zSFua8l8FueIKYeXDxZrAWvS8SMF8E5pMtOTv6R90N KnC6C4cGrkcfa9MgOQ9R3pRpY6/9kunPqmX4CgI7B7/+psOs5bcDQczloRDA3m058TIZ ll+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B4bPMwjYn/cwLfzlcaBXUEz6JuAQyWa2em2/XIMXY70=; b=rs4LGfcqDZ8VjinQv7ZUMBYdddEjvXxg4DJr7gErVD9hx5eyko+rCJ3LMPeuxGkNxn 8tgR4GHT6KOLbWb2al9vBeK5EuxqmRMrIygZlsDPesRHYNkNPyGoPBJizcyGDdS24dTD jK/wERFadI6rY9MgorryXsB+ROMReX1kUFMz16uJqWDBSO9mOiQNHPy8iL2EgUf91zHg abZfx4i3Z2SXNOVyXujynjQfVJ6iQjxzUEQoP//o7wgKBCWcRNcb0U+ld6M8cvjsPQtX J7Eu7Ah4mfY+9BJLAsabv+UpQT3RFTaCxcI/auGXfom9OAfHjQhhoYU1MdS4c0O5zUyw gVUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWrJ4jastaoAG1JlSWT/baK0QVkpE6yK+5KRw16lqaIZw7gn8bg yTnFYsWLU5dtMtJFUakmQLT1ZniJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxskX01sETTOilweXLp8JK6hFkTsEcBnn35upofLLmdJqOvFaEHLEe4Q7c5iyTN6uIJLmxO/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5282:: with SMTP id q2mr17899770lfm.17.1580911836187; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id d24sm12139345lfl.58.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:10:32 +0200
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Wesley Eddy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:10:40 -0000

> On 5 Feb, 2020, at 4:00 pm, Wesley Eddy <> wrote:
>> I have just added to reflect my thoughts on this issue.
> Thanks Jonathan; I have a quick follow-up question to make sure it's clear for the editors what their next steps should be.
> Is it sufficient if they're adding an open issues / future work section to list this as an area for potential research and improvement with the experimental L4S deployments and transports being created for it based on TCP Prague requirements?

No, I think this is fundamental enough (along with the closely related issue #16) to require a demonstrated working solution, rather than mere aspirations towards future research.

SCE represents what such a demonstrated working solution might look like.  The difference is in the signalling mechanism, which remains RFC-3168 compatible by design.  L4S differs in this respect, which is why I consider it a fundamental design issue.

 - Jonathan Morton