Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (26. draft-l4s-diffserv)

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Ok, leave informative reference in, and the WG can decide what to do with/about the l4s-diffserv draft later.

Thanks, --David

Gorry, David, Wes,
See [BB]
On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
=================================================================
26. L4S Diffserv draft is not being pursued

   “[I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv] gives a number of examples of such
   arrangements to address various requirements. [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv]
   describes how an operator might use L4S to offer low latency for all L4S traffic as well as
   using Diffserv for bandwidth differentiation.  It identifies two main types
   of approach, …”

⁃            If [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-diffserv] is not being pursued, this is not a useful reference in a spec RFC.
                  References to it should be removed by rewriting the text, e.g., “There are two primary types of approaches, …”
=================================================================

[BB] It has since been clarified with the chairs (off list) that the L4S Diffserv draft was left in a holding pattern while the main L4S drafts are processed, so its fate has not been decided either way. Altho' it is an individual draft, this informative reference will be left in, because ecn-l4s-id only discusses combining L4S and Diffserv /identifiers/, whereas l4s-diffserv discussed when it would make sense to combine L4S and Diffserv /services/ (which would motivate combining the identifiers, and it also allows combining identifiers to be discussed in more detail and in context).



Bob



--

________________________________________________________________

Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/ [bobbriscoe.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/bobbriscoe.net/__;!!LpKI!1PYnM1BawVJa47Mjd8Qsxz53ATBZg7p9l2Na7l0kq0ozhOLgERa87mfPwDjNzO4a$>