Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#25. drop-only)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Gorry, David, list,
See [BB]

On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> =================================================================
> *25. Missing drop-only requirement for excluded traffic*
> **
> Section 5.4.1.2.Exclusion of Traffic From L4S Treatment – this text:
>
> “The operator MUST NOT alter the end-to-end L4S ECN identifier from
> L4S to Classic, because its decision to exclude certain traffic from
> L4S treatment is local-only.”
> **
> ⁃I think be the word /its/this/ .
> ⁃Please add a requirement that ECT(1) traffic excluded from L4S 
> treatment MUST be handled as non-ECN traffic (e.g., all congestion 
> signalling is via drops), as Classic AQM treatment and ECN marking 
> produce the wrong results for such traffic.
> =================================================================

[BB] For the record, these were addressed in draft-16 with:

    "...because an operator decision to exclude certain traffic..."

And this para was added at the end of the section:

    An operator that excludes traffic carrying the L4S identifier from
    L4S treatment MUST NOT treat such traffic as if it carries the ECT(0)
    codepoint, which could confuse the sender.



Bob

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