Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#3: Ultra)

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

This looks good to me, Thanks, --David

See [BB]...

Please confirm this one is acceptable.
On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
=================================================================

3. The Abstract can be seen as marketing. In the past the IESG has taken exception to “claims” in an abstract of a standards-track document by marketing of “ultra-low”.

Abstract text says:
   so that ultra-low and consistently low
   queuing delay (typically sub-millisecond on average) becomes possible
   for L4S traffic without compromising link utilization.

⁃     Please avoid the assertion of “ultra-low” since this seems like a marketing brag.

[BB see end]


⁃      The abstract is still long, and some of the comparison with ‘Classic ECN’ could be moved
⁃      into the Introduction.

[BB] OK. We can take out sentence 2 onwards, until 'Nonetheless' (inclusive).



=================================================================
9. More marketing at the end of the Introduction

This text:
“It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
   distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to prevent the former from
   degrading the ultra-low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, without harming
   Classic performance.”

⁃            This is better than the corresponding Abstract text (see item 2 above), but still contains marketing – “ultra-low” needs to be changed to either “low” or “consistently low”. I suggest toi add  “at the modified network bottlenecks” after “without harming Classic performance.”  to avoid the implication that the absence of harm is global (which is known not to be the case).

=================================================================

We'll change ultra-low to very low throughout, including in the title.

I would like to explain why we had left 'ultra' in when we went through de-hyping the document previously. 'Ultra-low delay' was used throughout as a defined term. We figured it would be hard for a reader to recognize that 'very low delay' is a defined term, because it just looks like some vague words. However, this is a price we have to pay to make progress.

We'll also make the additional changes below.

CURRENT:
ultra-low and consistently low queuing delay (typically sub-millisecond on average)
PROPOSED:
very low (typically sub-millisecond on average) and consistently low queuing delay :
REASON:
There seems to be some confusion whether we're talking about very low delay or consistently low delay. The answer is both.

And to the Introduction:
CURRENT:
   “It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
   distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to prevent the former from
   degrading the ultra-low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, without harming
   Classic performance.”
PROPOSED:
   “It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
   distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to prevent the former from
   degrading the very low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, without harming
   Classic performance at these bottlenecks.”
REASON:
   As requested but less clunky than suggested.



Bob



--

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/ [bobbriscoe.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/bobbriscoe.net/__;!!LpKI!1kCMEcRP1DmGVPLrjPo4u_4t-OLHvQsJHrom3v9rVElFBV8OvGeT2eOhe1RqotoO$>