Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#4. rules)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

See [BB]

On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> =================================================================
> *4. Please be careful with the words here.*
>
> This text:
> “It gives an incremental
> migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can
> distinguish and isolate existing traffic that still follows the
> Classic behaviour, to prevent it degrading the low queuing delay and
> low loss of L4S traffic.This specification defines the rules that
> L4S transports and network elements need to follow_to ensure they_
> _neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic_.“
> ⁃I suggest removing _"to ensure they_
> _neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic"_
>
> =================================================================
>
>

[BB] What is the concern here? Cutting off the sentence like this 
disconnects its meaning from the previous sentence, which it was 
intended to follow on from.

Surely this is not a concern about making claims, because this sentence 
describes the document's role: setting requirements.
Perhaps you think the document defines more rules than just those to do 
with harm. It does in some minor cases, but the core purpose of the 
document is about preventing harm (mostly to latency).

Proposed resolution: Pending further guidance.



Bob

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