Re: [tsvwg] TCP Prague's RFC 5033 guidelines status?

Wesley Eddy <> Mon, 11 November 2019 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05F512009C for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:25:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlRXOn0XFpYS for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C0412007C for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l24so15799963qtp.10 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:24:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=E5+VdzMUo6cexZ3noI4R/NFkmS/RJCJE4gueXs33xvc=; b=sLHUVk5WQSbQQzKzPVfayRDYhD/v0mFnZkHQdBFOABavFPscjpogLn0h6lOdyoIvlr chN4Zv3ADax2Jz2M8fpmCN2sKkqX7fjQMWNTVIV6uybF/Gd/4VYT44U7fz5quAeXMDw+ h77yMFt90uOEMkLPO+aJVADd2OnJBQoJPEqazKV6L0IC2KGVE2ZaGlox1LN4sglIldtK tH7vxWzJTLNolqaEdUBgJoH3YbzUthFvUj9MNKmU+ben/2byNorkGRdbRwFhBi/nEVxH tmkbrdfQO6/dxE3YlIufKXX/1bDR57BMXKf+vsvfkNt3rsS8epyFP7KOH2wiMpOUQ756 cdoQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=E5+VdzMUo6cexZ3noI4R/NFkmS/RJCJE4gueXs33xvc=; b=UKHMkG7zXPS6bjaDvLLVlcd1lnSHj64aTc03amo8kx2jFAJ1LvWGxqc/+Bw6aFJv7y zvD04dEFXYV6DdEukCgZpzVY5kwA3ApxEx1Utao7bopsyjvvLUrztQ6sQ3AvqJpgxMet Q8jPBgJOTAOpXOoiBd5Pw6ip+i0sVQ8CVfo/my3CELS9kvdiv34v5yLL9PFuXPkHgSQu nJy61j8Xa0ogxo1vxAnKjSEfSkAcMq06CXqfpPYOtp2bkfJf7JOsYveG0d0qEKZB2Gfd jNB9m0S7S1e838cOwFd3fhWT7OT4NdG1T2tXw6x6J1T0/KsVIuNDtsmo+6OjH71AT4iv 3KWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUT6pX5mP3XBfTM+Phgjqd5a12wdFCDYUt71kzDFN+7KyR1PFSm 9ZQrkbjibgqLXuvC5H3ZlRt0YUtQa50=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwWWAPMdkJvS/9PVe1cu5ghFcGr289CYMBkPrVxDAZqaC5SHyiaSiXdSdQ92ask00/eKDBiw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:395a:: with SMTP id t26mr26499740qtb.22.1573482297850; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w30sm9261966qtc.47.2019. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:24:57 -0800 (PST)
References: <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:24:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] TCP Prague's RFC 5033 guidelines status?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:25:01 -0000

On 11/10/2019 3:58 PM, Holland, Jake wrote:
> Hi l4s-arch authors,
> In a side discussion, Pete mentioned the RFC 5033 guidelines list for
> new congestion controls, and looking through the items in Section 3, I
> wasn't sure whether or not they were all addressed in the L4S drafts and
> references:
> Would it be possible to add a section that goes through the points from
> RFC 5033 section 3 and provides pointers to the text and/or research
> results you know of that addresses each of them?
> I think it would be very helpful for the review of the proposal to have
> those listed out instead of trying to find them by digging through the
> documents and references.
> I guess it would also be OK to provide such a map on the mailing list,
> but I'll suggest that I think it would be more helpful if there's a way
> to include it as a section in one of the drafts.
> (And if people agree this is a useful addition, should we open a new
> issue to track it?)

Across threads, some of what we're discussing as "L4S" is really TCP 
Prague end-host code or algorithms, and not strictly the L4S in-network 
parts that we're currently chartered for in TSVWG.

I think 5033 is more relevant to the TCP Prague behaviors that use the 
signals coming from L4S queues, than the L4S in-network behavior by itself.