Re: [tsvwg] start of WGLC on L4S drafts: DualQ AQM

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 23/10/2021 17:30, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> so this post of Bob's highlights an inconsistency in the DualQ draft:
> for one he writes:
>
> "The coupling acts like a semi-permeable membrane; isolating the sub-millisecond average queuing delay and zero congestion loss of L4S from Classic latency and loss; but pooling the capacity between any combination of Scalable and Classic flows with roughly equivalent throughput per flow. The DualQ achieves this indirectly, without having to inspect transport layer flow identifiers and without compromising the performance of the Classic traffic."
>
> but later it is stated
>
> "Priority of L4S is required to be conditional to avoid total starvation of Classic by heavy L4S traffic."
>
> Which really just admits that the indirect "coupling" mechanism from the introduction does not work as promised, as without such an emergency scheduling get-out-of-jail card, L4S traffic can very much compromise "the performance of the Classic traffic" when both compete in the DualQ.
>
>
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
>

As we move towards trhe resolution of the WGLC, I agree it's good to 
clarify text that can be potentially misinterpretted. Could the editors 
please you align the two statements please in their next revision?

Gorry