Re: [tsvwg] L4S work in TSVWG

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

A good number of people seem interested in L4S, and I haven't noticed 
any comments against adopting work on it, based on the current 3 drafts.

We are planning time for L4S within the agenda for the 2nd TSVWG session 
in Chicago: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/agenda/tsvwg/

Please let us (chairs) know who would like to speak on this (Bob, Koen, 
etc.) so we can coordinate timing, etc.



On 3/13/2017 1:48 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Wes/tsvwg list,
> I guess I ought to say I support this work, and I'm still interested 
> in contributing.
> I've been pushing forward on some next research steps, so sorry for 
> the belated reply.
> Bob
>
> On 16/02/17 19:33, Pat Thaler wrote:
>> I'm supportive of this going forward in TSVWG and interested in 
>> contributing.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Ingemar Johansson S 
>> <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi
>>
>>     Yes, I am very interested in this work and will contribute to the
>>     work.
>>
>>     /Ingemar
>>
>>     >
>>     > Message: 1
>>     > Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:13:32 -0500
>>     > From: Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     > To: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     > Subject: [tsvwg] L4S work in TSVWG
>>     > Message-ID:
>>     <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>     >
>>     > Hello, as a co-chair, I'm checking to make sure we have the
>>     critical mass to go
>>     > forward with L4S in TSVWG.
>>     >
>>     > Over time, there has been good discussion on this spread across several lists
>>     > and groups (ICCRG, AQM, TCP-Prague, etc.).  The ADs have asked
>>     that going
>>     > forward TSVWG be the home for this work, so I think we can
>>     limit discussion
>>     > to TSVWG now (assuming relevant parties are on-list).
>>     >
>>     > The three documents at present around this are:
>>     >
>>     > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch-00
>>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch-00>
>>     >
>>     > 2.
>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-00
>>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-00>
>>     >
>>     > 3.
>>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-02
>>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-02>
>>     >
>>     > There was interest in working these in TSVWG at the last IETF
>>     meeting
>>     > (noted in the minutes), and we want that discussion to continue
>>     on the
>>     > mailing list.
>>     >
>>     > Please respond if you're interested in participating in this
>>     work by helping to
>>     > review, analyze, implement, test, simulate, deploy, etc. and
>>     agree that
>>     > TSVWG should add milestones on the L4S problem, based on the
>>     current
>>     > drafts.  Or if you have other thoughts, those would be
>>     interesting too.
>>     >
>>     > Thanks!
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/