[tsvwg] Comments on draft-briscoe-l4s-diffserv
"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at> Thu, 17 January 2019 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BDC1277CC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:00:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1fjyzntnr6p for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D05A0127133 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.67.133.231] ([217.70.211.17]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTSmp-1gdMZN2Y3r-00SRrk; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:59:50 +0100
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>
Message-ID: <68b61ee7-625c-9e89-7b9c-88c20c5ffc21@gmx.at>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:59:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:C3X82cRN6QaPTJZbsT7A0/j2WHobyfp6KT8DEoc/C09YFzk6oF6 eHDpNq5at/i/4UCQGZyt7smS0vSdWnnrbPJQ0wo427088duLxftuR2W0XStsheS16ZpOgg7 R05omEMvmFoh49NgRx59owca0/lolBpKTBav12M+fGBwfrC6bsoO3atlvcSTSqUkQjqzECV 7t9BgyAaYyW20yJuFHGMQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:E17D0+RhGEY=:fgBujH6pb675K4isK6jYrL EO1ZduH051ITMc4NsIRI0P73e5oeYG/jNe2KoSSxrul7iP477UJy8tUox2gqHRCn0FcCmovZC sBCnxvJgwlaxWoc2Xlrdx8gpeOysM5t9GjjYDNwgTqmqJBv+ZOT8ZhCxgY/+Vf5BzQlm89q0P +Abmp7ymdmZvWxR+IFsPugrmHIpt1CHTMU87GlEe0IWz6SeAF1h1tEOQdSOx+MQTQn9yXR11x fPdANdRBFPRkwxJ2xP/FMR/EpC7HVYpmcTRmjHsx8Q4rGtZ0brHneiwunIsqM+OQwkIeY8LKW jhGLa0gjTF9p0Sxw4owYD08dd2ssrmX0Z09VBjtlza2CPORhsJK5uCQZyzzwYh3Buy6YQ2kpE ADYIxcSIS/CTedRK7bJzjsemP31SIQh6OgKKGBBtRcseMYejva4NFgYrcYD4ZOy6suH7L2gdp A05NyVKFX0E/EZ1h9RjCtoGbG08LF5z+NTTIXg9NkdTh8swYsOzRRMJ/mz63v5iS4fXFSDUwF DBHvUagSettcPXkmALBfB4bXic8J/WAhPbPQNdSKokeJ6xf1eP74IQNulYYw99lqJ5BwuCLJ2 ltFmRcxSoRxvKYsa/Q2PC9SghujCWtIIP0wFQOedeL3q/hpPQC59QqJBP1ENcQwp2Qax0MDhN 031iyznOhkfvhsPdm8Fs63YyoONNZbxJ8d4GafEIW2L+8qltKPFi7N3fShlTiK+XbtQJXMY5f +1xG8OmPxrSxcOad3M3w7FRRpXpbEQNksArPUOzKJMkr63PGGAQ/SfYFFlYmbtKXWEpwBdTTN P6q83bShiuVrn6/NwHMoYmZGn39dbmvPPJ0LSW08/oozcadPItDc2QWHmy/b+QLmo6NrGiDRK G2TpVMe+f2/kSONJ1qqkcSHpDeqr4EQLdwGTXPuCqalaaS9M8ujiy1uFCmAezVwfqO4FnAXhj gY0Pg4+D3UA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/jIeM8rNUKGizxcqouua7ACzDPXM>
Subject: [tsvwg] Comments on draft-briscoe-l4s-diffserv
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:00:37 -0000
Hi Bob, Sec. 1.1: Would DCQCN qualify as a 2nd example of a L4s type congestion control - although it is not under IETF change control? At least from the high level description it does keep referencing DCTCP and QCN as design inspirations, and works in conjunction with an AQM doing all-or-nothing marking above a certain threshold... Sec. 2.2: May be more prudent to mention "explicit bandwidth allocation". Within each queue, the L4S CC does perform "fair" allocation of available bandwidth (which may be restricted due to DiffServ). Table 1 - the formatting/style of the text initially below the table may better be put as the 1st para behind the "notes" for better formatting... Sec. 7.2.2 s/single stage over all 8 octets of the/single stage over all 8 bits of the/ Best regards, Richard
- [tsvwg] Comments on draft-briscoe-l4s-diffserv Scheffenegger, Richard