[tsvwg] Question regarding slide 3 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessb-31-tcp-prague-status-of-implementation-and-evaluation-00#page=3

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob, Koen,

I recently had a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessb-31-tcp-prague-status-of-implementation-and-evaluation-00#page=3 again, and I wonder whether you could share more information about the data/experiments underlaying that figure.

It looks similar to Figure 7 of https://www.bobbriscoe.net/projects/latency/dctth_journal_draft20190726.pdf, except the individual CDFs look slightly different. Figure7 does not have much of a legend and is also not referenced at all in the manuscript. Could you share the exact test conditions, as well as the modifications to fq_codel you mention in the manuscript as well as the ce_threshold value you used (assuming you used that at all), please?

Also, in that manuscript you seemed to have used fq_codel with target 5ms and interval 100ms and compared it against DualPI2 with a 1 ms ref_delay target" for the L-queue. How does your modified fq_codel stack up in comparison, how are target and interval interpreted for ECT(1) traffic?


Best Regards
	Sebastian