Re: [tsvwg] Draft TSVWG minutes from the meetings in Montreal

[Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>]

> On 10 Aug, 2019, at 10:46 am, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The Chairs have uploaded draft notes from the meetings to the materials.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-tsvwg-03
> 
> Please let us know if there are any factual errors in the notes or corrections to names, etc. Thanks again to the volunteers who helped take these notes!

I have a few proposed corrections:

> Jonathan Morton: I have 4 topics:
> f) IETF approval is required to use ECN.  
> g) Incremental deployment requires compatibility, which has not been demonstrated so far.
> a) Effective congestion control is required. FQ_Codel is the most deployed AQM. With the current Codel, the time to reach the correct marked rate would be 4 seconds (?). 4 seconds for a link with 10ms is not effective.
> b) Fair queueing is fairly robust. My concern is when there are two consecutive bottlenecks. In our experiments we have found issues.

Referring to the notes I was reading from:

Under point F, I was not referring to ECN use in general - that would be absurd as it's a current RFC - but to the Congestion Response/Marking Differences experiments provided for in RFC-8311, due to the effective redefinition of the CE codepoint proposed by L4S.

Under point A, I was referring to Codel in general, not FQ-Codel, although most actual deployments of Codel are indeed as part of FQ-Codel.  The inadequate response of DCTCP (and thus presumably Prague) to Codel is of only slightly less concern in FQ form, due to the consecutive-bottleneck problem alluded to in point B (where the upstream bottleneck may be a dumb FIFO).

The following would better capture the above:

f) IETF approval is required for ECN semantic changes, even under RFC-8311.
[...]
a) Effective congestion control is required. Codel is the most deployed AQM.  (etc.)

> Wes: Does anyone want to bring up IPR?
> Rod: There are people who want to speak to IPR are not present.
> Jonathan: Dave Taht wants to speak to this later, he could not join.
> Chairs: Please read the IPR summary and decide on your own position.

Here, the name I mentioned was Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen, not Dave Taht.  I'm sure Dave also has much to say on the subject, but it was Toke who had specifically said he wanted to comment that day.

 - Jonathan Morton