Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Tom/David,

Aha - I see now. Another possibility could be something like:

"Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S)" ??

Gorry


On 06/05/2021 21:30, Black, David wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I'm the source of pushback here.  In my view, L4S is an interesting mix, as the L4S ID draft does not define a complete protocol - rather, it specifies the ECN marking mechanism and places requirements on the endpoint congestion control response without specifying that response in detail (e.g., to implement TCP Prague congestion control based on L4S, one also needs to also go look at a TCP Prague spec).
>
> I'd be happy with "mechanism" or "functionality" but I don't see a fully implementable "protocol" here.  What do you think?
>
> Thanks, --David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tom Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
> To: Gorry Fairhurst
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> On 5/5/21 11:52 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> =================================================================
>>
>> *5. Please be careful with the words here.*
>>
>> **
>>
>> This text:
>>
>> “This specificationdefines _the protocol to be used for_ a new network
>>
>> service called low latency, low loss and scalable throughput (L4S).”
>>
>> **
>>
>> ⁃This document does not define a protocol, so the words "_the protocol
>> to be used for" _should be removed.
> Gorry, on this point, I made the original suggestion to call this a
> protocol document during the -13 review (email to the list on March 7);
> please see below my original comment regarding this.
>
> - Tom
> Explicit Congestion Notification
>   > (ECN) Protocol for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S)
>
>   >
>   > Title
>   >
>   > The title of this draft suggests that the scope is narrowly defining
>   > the identifier of L4S semantics, but the draft covers much more than
>   > this; in fact, it perhaps it could more accurately be described as an
>   > L4S protocol specification.  At the end of the abstract, the draft
>   > states "This specification defines the rules that L4S transports and
>   > network elements need to follow...", i.e. a protocol.  It also gets
>   > into operational considerations and open questions for experimentation.
>   >
>   > Perhaps a broader title such as "" would better match
>   > the contents.
>