Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce-00.txt

[Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

I'm curious about the queue protection function in the LLD document.
It seems to assume that a flow table is maintained to determine if a flow
has the right to enter the low latency queue.

Can you give more details about that component? Or point me to a reference?

Thanks
Luca


On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:50 PM Greg White <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm not sure how you misinterpreted L4S as being "for the sole benefit of
> the cable industry".  It is a standards-track draft here at IETF.  From
> what I understand, multiple network technologies are in the process of
> implementing it.  None have been public about it until now.
>
> -Greg
>
>
> On 3/11/19, 5:33 PM, "Dave Taht" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Greg White <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>     > On the item below, I am intending to finish up and submit a TSVWG
>     > informational draft today that describes the (new) mandatory support
>     > for L4S AQM and dual-queue requirement in DOCSIS 3.1 (CM & CMTS)
>     > equipment. The draft will essentially be a reformat of this document:
>     >
>     >
> https://cablela.bs/low-latency-docsis-technology-overview-february-2019
>     >
>     > These requirements were added in December, and will roll out as
>     > firmware updates to existing DOCSIS 3.1 equipment (nearly 100% of
>     > CMTSs, and a growing fraction of CMs) over time.
>
>     I was unaware of this notice, and as I note, it's only march...
>
>     Using up the last ECN bit in this way, for the sole benefit of the
> cable
>     industry, strikes me as a poor standard for the internet.
>
>     >
>     > -Greg
>     >
>     > From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Bob Briscoe
>     > <[e-mail]>
>     > Date: Monday, March 11, 2019 at 10:29 AM
>     > To: Dave Taht <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>     > Cc: Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for
>     > draft-morton-taht-tsvwg-sce-00.txt
>     >
>     > L4S is far from dead. It's merely been working differently from how
>     > you're used to. Those working on an L4S AQM (at least those in the
>     > cable industry) had to have a private WG for the last ~18 months, but
>     > now we're allowed to publish and talk openly again.
>
>
>