Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops-00.txt

[Greg White <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete, 

Thanks for the review and the comments.  See below.

On 5/7/21, 2:40 AM, "Pete Heist" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Greg, response below...

    On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 03:54 +0000, Greg White wrote:
    > All,
    > 
    > I had hoped to upload this further in advance of the interim meeting
    > next week so that participants would have more chance to review it
    > beforehand. 
    > 
    > There are quite a few changes from the last individual draft, as can be
    > seen in the diff:  
    > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops-02&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops-00
    >  
    > And, there remain a few TODO items as well.  These changes/TODOs were
    > the mainly result of review comments on the mailing list, though I
    > received some offline comments and suggested text as well.
    > 
    > I'll do a relatively quick summary of the changes during the timeslot
    > on Monday, but for now, the most notable changes are:
    > 
    > New Section 3.1 summarizing recent studies of RFC3168 deployment (Jake,
    > Pete, please review and see if the text is an accurate summary).

    -> "A small number of recent studies have attempted to gauge the level
    of RFC3168 deployment in the internet."

    [PH] Suggestion: "Several recent studies..." would be more neutral.

[GW] I suppose it depends on whether we're content with the studies that have been done so far, or whether we want to encourage more.  "Several recent studies" to me sounds like we feel as if the topic has already been reasonably well covered, and there wouldn't be a lot of interest in new data, which I don't think is true.  Also, we've only got 2 studies that cover a large number of paths (one of which shared very little data on this subject) and one study that covered a single small ISP (and none of them were crafted to try to detect whether the CE-marking was a shared queue or FQ).  In my view this is a small number of studies.   


    -> "but in other subnets there were 33 IPs where CE-marking was
    possibly observed"

    [PH] Suggestion: "...where possible AQM activity was observed via CE
    marks and/or ECE flags"

[GW] Thanks, I'll make that change.


    -> "It was agreed
    (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Rj7GylByZuFa3_LTCMvEfb-CYp
    w/) that these were likely to be due to fq_codel implementations in
    home routers deployed by members of the cooperative."

    [PH] I'd like to see WiFi access points mentioned, as they were also
    discussed at some point. Suggestion: "...likely to be due to either
    fq_codel implementations in home routers, or the drivers of WiFi access
    points."

[GW] Ok, but we still believe that, between these two, home routers are likely (by far) to be the dominant source of the CE-marks for these 33 IPs, correct?  I would assume that home routers are A) much more common than APs, and B) much more likely to be configured as the bottleneck (via SQM).   If it is more appropriate, I could add a mention of Access Points in another place (e.g. Section 6).



    Pete

    > New Section 6 discussing actions that can be taken by an operator of FQ
    > bottlenecks.
    > New Section 7 discussing conclusion of the L4S experiment (Sebastian,
    > for now I went with the text proposed on the mailing list, we can
    > revise it in the next draft if needed).
    > 
    > -Greg
    > 
    > 
    > On 5/5/21, 6:34 PM, "tsvwg on behalf of [e-mail]" <
    > [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > 
    >     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
    > directories.
    >     This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group WG of
    > the IETF.
    > 
    >             Title           : Operational Guidance for Deployment of
    > L4S in the Internet
    >             Author          : Greg White
    >         Filename        : draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops-00.txt
    >         Pages           : 18
    >         Date            : 2021-05-05
    > 
    >     Abstract:
    >        This document is intended to provide guidance in order to ensure
    >        successful deployment of Low Latency Low Loss Scalable
    > throughput
    >        (L4S) in the Internet.  Other L4S documents provide guidance for
    >        running an L4S experiment, but this document is focused solely
    > on
    >        potential interactions between L4S flows and flows using the
    > original
    >        ('Classic') ECN over a Classic ECN bottleneck link.  The
    > document
    >        discusses the potential outcomes of these interactions,
    > describes
    >        mechanisms to detect the presence of Classic ECN bottlenecks,
    > and
    >        identifies opportunities to prevent and/or detect and resolve
    >        fairness problems in such networks.  This guidance is aimed at
    >        operators of end-systems, operators of networks, and
    > researchers.
    > 
    > 
    >     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops/
    > 
    >     There is also an HTML version available at:
    >     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops-00.html
    > 
    > 
    >     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
    > submission
    >     until the htmlized version and diff are available at
    > tools.ietf.org.
    > 
    >     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    >     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
    > 
    > 
    >