Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction

Wesley Eddy <> Wed, 05 February 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EC51200B3 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:00:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0oLaYIjY4ixr for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98DE0120026 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q15so1857181qke.9 for <>; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:00:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=rhQeAH0N6seBymmBUuxfnTk6DIUNrlif/g6uawQNenQ=; b=uPz06yL1ma65GFgAMcI63/dtxtg/5AJrRWrUQ9g7h2iKsC/azqJq6olsaaGJVYDRXo V8nkoT/aleUp/k7mXcSmTuSlPWbiuVWTO9hbxI+hP9cCUglLONWHjcIkTPOZ1yT/Uoii dQtxAAF3Vr15UBzf/rvSqGOz3Cdmzw27248ScWe4hPHZu1xPyI4mZgBNNCrl7RJkdMfi csMumh9wKmvkZqFdZA4mfA0QS0IH031r2wrq1/em6dutZxvoLZViTfqDjn+x9BvwK2ih NgKaOmvedssGzjKBzNDnY94r8yWTJotU91RuzIc3P3u3gEiEroXfkg8rlzp/l8hy4pDt nZhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=rhQeAH0N6seBymmBUuxfnTk6DIUNrlif/g6uawQNenQ=; b=PY1vpxVTVLrt1X/kTVLSQp2LOhN8zaN+Wwp/k4ukDSjMWAlYUVnu5hoj2nGN+KrY46 4LXXZJC1L2Lu6cdF2tYT9sZJQGfE5u3gvA3CqzXig6ZrGMbcLl4erhstv69atgiLRLFH Mb7GSQ2WhT0XFTVqOYHNC3Mf9C2RhLa1HvQ2sVDxMt6pOmRE5BTjbOLGiMz6uq40q+cu nihL37ym/sAVIxXJ4NP0dk7skTQgD75/sFv0g23UM5BMwI/PZdz3C5L2lkWWfdeJ/O9S xo1nc5YY2kWESyUVC5YLZy2KLR4uERIrzKLynOvqrYWJ8hvuJDRSAzLe8VwbwJCZradp /NKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXVcuQfmohs4YOyoXgkDjtt3005G2awYsFuplp46XbBCUBkyN0 lOfZCh6ka1Hv74oT58/qIdygmPg5KNY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCw5S6LVP7KK5+UE1qfegXdSNjYBFgBNNF/o9CMj0camOacZ4W1cp7y+VeJxTE6PCFnqLKuA==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9d8c:: with SMTP id g134mr32591330qke.128.1580911215320; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h12sm13553486qtn.56.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2020 06:00:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Jonathan Morton <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 09:00:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:00:19 -0000

On 2/4/2020 9:56 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 4 Feb, 2020, at 5:40 pm, Wesley Eddy <> wrote:
>> It looks like we have mostly converged on the L4S issue tracker entry for FQ interaction:
>> Greg's last comment there sums it up well, I think.  Based on the threads and meeting notes, I'm not sure if anything specific needs to be done to the L4S drafts, other than making sure that the TCP Prague discussion there reflects what the testing has revealed is important to be done.
>> So, I think when the drafts are updated, we will be able to close this issue.  Please correct if this is wrong.
> I have just added to reflect my thoughts on this issue.

Thanks Jonathan; I have a quick follow-up question to make sure it's 
clear for the editors what their next steps should be.

Is it sufficient if they're adding an open issues / future work section 
to list this as an area for potential research and improvement with the 
experimental L4S deployments and transports being created for it based 
on TCP Prague requirements?