Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (26. draft-l4s-diffserv)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Gorry, David, Wes,
See [BB]

On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> =================================================================
> *26. L4S Diffserv draft is not being pursued*
> **
> “[I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv] gives a number of examples of such
> arrangements to address various requirements. 
> [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv]
> describes how an operator might use L4S to offer low latency for all 
> L4S traffic as well as
> using Diffserv for bandwidth differentiation.It identifies two main types
> of approach, …”
> **
> ⁃If [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv] is not being pursued, this is not 
> a useful reference in a spec RFC.
> References to it should be removed by rewriting the text, e.g., “There 
> are two primary types of approaches, …”
> =================================================================

[BB] It has since been clarified with the chairs (off list) that the L4S 
Diffserv draft was left in a holding pattern while the main L4S drafts 
are processed, so its fate has not been decided either way. Altho' it is 
an individual draft, this informative reference will be left in, because 
ecn-l4s-id only discusses combining L4S and Diffserv /identifiers/, 
whereas l4s-diffserv discussed when it would make sense to combine L4S 
and Diffserv /services/ (which would motivate combining the identifiers, 
and it also allows combining identifiers to be discussed in more detail 
and in context).



Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/