Re: [tsvwg] opening L4S issue #28 on the dual queue coupled AQM

Sebastian Moeller <> Fri, 31 January 2020 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7855C12081A for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:43:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.348
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cgULumZwqfeP for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3AD12011D for <>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 03:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1580471007; bh=ivS0ePfgyZHT8QK9kdNTKpYp07BevqpXe0LBIP3azus=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=OSp1SXZwPKLgfftoSTwne8eQNTswocT50yGWUGpmXJ206KBfKJP7tqELA+AKr6FKZ AksJyNP0p6YZ83touMle1wTiWg/gZA7RgmBfxdakH5y0Izg8qdnSuEiJsaVeD7ibVH f8cN9Llp+u16Pzj1O1MB1tbuoQgImVJpwIS4NzUs=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx005 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M59GA-1iwOhG1rPg-0018qE; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:38:22 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:38:21 +0100
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Wesley Eddy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:uEimgHpqmqklPbi+KzSDsYIrf1Bc8Jk05x3S5pPs9IwN8Mid7Wu 6xsjucXiwToJI1LgnL2jsefEWlxcpUHSk3bn6zRdf2NrMJhX8H44p3tPPNL/M6RmMxHnxan HUbqI7RUfomYIdnkcE2K3zH9LiFpOpGBn8kr5Ibmx0lKeu4ZYReT63jlFezlXnQCldrzop0 GrRKXtSbZ+pw29KJyZexw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:z1KM/2sZHnE=:cvBPF7bosJtwM6o/QRZgag NA3/WkZqPOU9OirfVAb1LTlVqNbnkYeO07ZwPLe6l0LQHEYSVV9NRUZPqIsj52QFJctIQFmxU tiWJZ6HIjVgZV9AfkPuh+FhWYHHRg1N7a4z3+LCIRcoHmDp1SThJ0G0HED6OqnHgV2tTmKNCH 84u1qXJi/sJYM6Wc1oIt2V9CSSWcDsrLC/Wr7JoDa5vVyfY1eS8An82tQ/vSbzRZ5aomHHNwU Cp8/E/uC7B1qFg/eOTkMaEUYCwn7toBN37e8f1jmA6BCOdVZVnwkhZhj4Y05DGtYQLwX97MnO Dy5/htHi2egb3RJM6Vs9HfzkffZyEEgb2ogrwAVJA1ZVb+soMRoyFju3XiEykIQUFZx6rPl0n rAfzWMq5W1Y8I10vDI5s6crVaZ2DWPiDI7mye/ShxoYBqAOLmW8y5AH53Y8ingC1ON/VOCO0g B+v9ACAlaP3UA9+KbRtx7XI1watvwd3Bz3Eh6RsXyPkKAg/xSlQk+FtKN+2FRRffreVI+l+Ht ZnXFh3GWvoanIOcH1aeejWLXqhSGaAZ1CJ7KyUxvOg9m0Z70nRQApn8pjNl//RhtIAkjOmwI5 fTN8hISxmgFxVPnOqZPysex2DSiBIu0v1pIGRA6VoxM6dq4F1pACvhEuCTIgPpuNQeUDoTEP8 pJYPNjONU88FTjDkGzLpR6EQ7V2CaJyxBsoeFPD5/6uGDWAVbgOqmX4glo0bnr7/IE3bxXift u6ExqLfBU2YsOnt1Z0L+WXHT7aNrOGrhrB5uvkDXcV/fP/skVvD19zS+m/iYPc6gVSrXEQPwO PKRp4HxITYSxepj2JaP3eYAmzLDCWSqbLAz44hBb+ZvGpCCNK+oMx/C3YLpdLjovFiTzaoiqc J+thVVsVBrzoc02l+gKwKBEEWk51cFPcY6vkXbw00xbA/rCED6GeMXS1fenL9Yvbg6gzNgfqf QssAYsbN3OYnK2UdMxxWLCtFDYyksOf/3LnpymCuQX/H4GaXqPU2yKScc+RJWMy//DfQSGhdc EXrke6fqWj5qeDQgMvA+MIK42NvLM2ASKn8nsfYz2rxFitX2SwixMOxNqmJDmv/8RoO2hN4Z3 0CZD2SVQgNYJmmn6pNIAo3JKLaoemRlK30+FtiCgvWvRVf1MbOkrFUzSLvv3kUO/F1uznHDYP ycqQJGqcYV7tDwFjWebNqTtNCGfvPD7HUo3dOj5p5+ChFT+BURdvBhn0yg1vY7m6loDVWm4db 2iwwcyGICK0KQVtz9
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] opening L4S issue #28 on the dual queue coupled AQM
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:43:35 -0000

Dear Eddy,

thanks for shepherding this. I just noticed that in the comments of #22 I had added an argument/topic that merits its own independent issue number, so I went and opened #28. 

It would be great if #28 could be put on the agenda as well. As far as I can tell it is pertinent to the question of how/when the L4S drafts should proceed as it specifically tackles the "network related" component, the dual queue coupled AQM ,that probably will/would see roll-out first.

Best Regards

> On Jan 28, 2020, at 18:18, Wesley Eddy <> wrote:
> We're planning a virtual interim (WebEx) meeting next month with time to focus on L4S progress.  The announcement went out yesterday to the mailing list: (details for WebEx participation will be sent out beforehand).
> In preparation, I'm trying to update the issue tracker, and hopefully close a few items based on progress.  I will start a thread for each.
> Issue #25 was created to cover IPR concerns.  For reference, the trac entry is:
> I think we have at least rough consensus that the IPR declarations are not a blocking concern.  My plan is to put some text into the draft shepherd writeup(s) for the drafts with IPR linked, noting the discussion in the WG, and then close out this issue in the tracker.
> Please shout if this doesn't sound right.