[tsvwg] L4S Editorial Reviews (was: start of WGLC on L4S drafts)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

Having said I would hold back replies, yours are fairly brief, so I'll 
reply now...

On 11/08/2021 14:57, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I re-reviewed the drafts and support publication. A few editorial comments below.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch - This purely editorial:
> For me the main contribution of this work is nicely shown in Figure 1.  I recommend to add a similar, maybe slightly simplified figure at the beginning of section 2.

[BB] Until draft-07, this figure was in Section 2. But we moved it to 
the more detailed section on the DualQ when we also 'rebalanced' the 
draft to make it clear that FQ-L4S is as much a part of the L4S 
architecture as DualQ.

Was your comment given with that in mind?

>
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id - nits:
> - In the Intro there seems to be a missing word at the end of this sentence...?
> " L4S uses an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) scheme at the IP
>     layer that is similar to the original (or 'Classic') ECN approach,
>     except as specified within."

[BB] That's OK in English. It just means similar to "as specified 
below", but "below" tends to mean "immediately below".

> - Section 5.1 has this todo still:
> " 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) ?}."

[BB] Yeah, I noticed that after I had posted the drafts. This is 
actually a technical point, so I'll start a separate thread on it, in 
case some people don't read emails starting 'editorial'.

> - In section 7.1 there is a superfluous bullet point (without text)

[BB] That's a slip of the thumbs - meant to be sub-bullets of the 
previous bullet. Sorted.

>
> Also question on Section 7.2 (open issues): Are these supposed to stay or can they also be converted into a experiment question/goal in section 7.1?

[BB] I think they should stay. The first (coexistence) was meant to have 
a pointer to l4sops (now added).
For the second I've added:

    "...Originally, this was due to a bug in the initialization of the
    congestion EWMA in the Linux implementation of TCP Prague. That was
    quickly fixed, which removed the main performance impact, but
    further improvement would be useful (either by modifying CoDel,
    Scalable congestion controls, or both)."


>
> For both draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id and draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled again one purely editorial comment:
> I feel that section 1, in both docs respectively, could be much shorter and point the reader to the arch document instead.

[BB] Understood. Personally I've wavered between doing as you suggest 
and keeping them so that each document stands on its own. If you're not 
rabidly against, on balance I'd leave them as they are. But if there are 
multiple strong opinions, I'd be happy to relent.

>
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled:
> Should Figure 1 rather say L and C queue instead of L4S and Classic queue?

[BB] I think it's useful to give the names in full in this figure, isn't 
it? However, given it talks about the L queue and C queue below that, 
I'll say
     L4S (L) queue
     Classic (C) queue
OK?




Bob

>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

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