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

Bob Briscoe <> Mon, 09 March 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A383A145C; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 OdGqdhb2Mxtl; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E00FC3A13C8; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:References:Cc:To:Subject:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Ioo/X/ga6b2xGFIYriPler6D83TfRIhnuPfr8i5tSlg=; b=71vcZF3CSmlCwCFp1yZDvNCX// 1b66toUCidd0fzdyyRAxC3P+/3rU8UQOa5ORdUEHTJovrfX82E2ajbII04O4n141C28k5yy2ashkU E2Dn11Bddltpdc4J7zEev1cf09cZqu3fq/4c7YdtU/KRgLmDnmo/DRKizzBcKAiraU4o8MLVLCQ8d Ut5qCxlIb75OFR+gRIHwFjJhT/YXJwaaEiG7xANV9Phtr84/5DN/8pGV/11VDDeZH3b4NFo5r0LaP sqFgClfagTXphOg6RlElGkb0aOWiRBQP9ee7fIFtDJ239Cd4hf40g6tp+Wq8RXrwLOnlwluh2HxCr wXnwnwKQ==;
Received: from [] (port=43022 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jBLhq-0002Ip-1v; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 16:56:42 +0000
From: Bob Briscoe <>
To: "Holland, Jake" <>, "" <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 16:56:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
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, 09 Mar 2020 16:56:55 -0000


Section 4.3 of ecn-l4s-id is a list of additions to these requirements, 
specifically for L4S congestion controls. So, as far as the editing of 
the initial L4S documents is concerned, I believe it is sufficient to 
clarify that the list of requirements in ecn-l4s-id is in addition to 
RFC5033, not in place of.

The specification of each L4S congestion control is where it would have 
to be demonstrated that each of these RFC5033 requirements have been 

Review of specifications of new CCs is currently handled in iccrg (see 
the ref [NewCC_Proc] in the L4S arch draft). So I don't think that's a 
tsvwg ticket.

(I am getting to your email, about the DualQ-SCE alternative, that I 
deferred just before the interim - next.)


               Eggert, L., "Experimental Specification of New Congestion
               Control Algorithms", IETF Operational Note ion-tsv-alt-cc,
               July 2007.

On 10/11/2019 20:58, 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?)
> Thanks and regards,
> Jake

Bob Briscoe