Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#3: Ultra)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

See [BB]...

Please confirm this one is acceptable.

On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> =================================================================
>
> *3. The Abstract can be seen as marketing. In the past the IESG has 
> taken exception to “claims” in an abstract of a standards-track 
> document by marketing of “ultra-low”.*
>
> Abstract text says:
> so that _ultra-low and consistently low_
> queuing delay (typically sub-millisecond on average) becomes possible
> for L4S traffic without compromising link utilization.
>
> ⁃Please avoid the assertion of “ultra-low” since this seems like a 
> marketing brag.

[BB see end]

> ⁃The abstract is still long, and some of the comparison with ‘Classic 
> ECN’ could be moved
> ⁃into the Introduction.

[BB] OK. We can take out sentence 2 onwards, until 'Nonetheless' 
(inclusive).


> =================================================================
> *9. More marketing at the end of the Introduction*
>
> This text:
> “It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified 
> network bottlenecks can
> distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to 
> prevent the former from
> degrading the ultra-low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, 
> without harming
> Classic performance.”
>
> ⁃This is better than the corresponding Abstract text (see item 2 
> above), but still contains marketing – “ultra-low” needs to be changed 
> to either “low” or “consistently low”. I suggest toi add  “at the 
> modified network bottlenecks” after “without harming Classic 
> performance.”to avoid the implication that the absence of harm is 
> global (which is known not to be the case).
>
> =================================================================
>

We'll change ultra-low to very low throughout, including in the title.

I would like to explain why we had left 'ultra' in when we went through 
de-hyping the document previously. 'Ultra-low delay' was used throughout 
as a defined term. We figured it would be hard for a reader to recognize 
that 'very low delay' is a defined term, because it just looks like some 
vague words. However, this is a price we have to pay to make progress.

We'll also make the additional changes below.

CURRENT:
ultra-low and consistently low queuing delay (typically sub-millisecond 
on average)
PROPOSED:
very low (typically sub-millisecond on average) and consistently low 
queuing delay :
REASON:
There seems to be some confusion whether we're talking about very low 
delay or consistently low delay. The answer is both.

And to the Introduction:
CURRENT:
“It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified 
network bottlenecks can
distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to 
prevent the former from
degrading the ultra-low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, 
without harming
Classic performance.”
PROPOSED:
“It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified 
network bottlenecks can
distinguish and isolate existing Classic traffic from L4S traffic to 
prevent the former from
degrading the very low delay and loss of the new scalable transports, 
without harming
Classic performance at these bottlenecks.”
REASON:
    As requested but less clunky than suggested.



Bob

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