Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

["Ranganathan, Ram" <[e-mail]>]

I support Option 1 – ECT(1) as input. I believe the classification and treatment of low latency traffic, in a generic manner, is very important for future evolution of applications – and it is not specific to DOCSIS or wireless technologies alone. Ability of network elements to adapt quickly to congestion and maintain very low latency queues is imperative for URLLC style applications. I believe that continued work on improving any L4S weaknesses to avoid impact on classic/Cubic traffic will assist in making this a viable option and mitigate any currently existing weaknesses.

Ram Ranganathan
CommScope

From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 2:15 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opin
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Report This Email<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=Y29tbXNjb3BlL2lhbi53aGVlbG9ja0Bjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tLzA2MzM3NjY0ZjQ2MmVlZTMyODU5MzI1N2ZmZjExNThmLzE1ODg2MTYxMzAuMA==#key=c7a5ff4b8fef1435341ea264eb77da86>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/>  Protection by INKY<https://www.inky.com>


In

this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).


If

you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU]

for context on this question.


  1.
  2.  I
  3.  support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort
  4.  on the current drafts.
  5.
  6.
  7.  I
  8.  support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
  9.
  10.
  11. There
  12. is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
  13.


Please

submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.