Re: [tsvwg] Chairs slides for interim meeting

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

David, 
 one question in advance since I won't be at the meeting:
The slides say "Choose exactly one, not both". Why 'exactly one', not 'at most one'? Should not both proposals need to put a positive case,
as well as convincing us that they don't break the internet? Since this is the last codepoint, a given case may not be sufficient to use it up; and therefore both proposals may fail.

Alex




On Wednesday, February 19, 2020, 10:28:34 PM GMT, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote: 





  


I’ve posted the chairs slides for the interim meeting on how we plan (hope?) to make progress in the interim meeting and at the Vancouver meeting.  They focus on ECT(1) usage.

 

These slides and the rest of the materials for the interim meeting are (and will be) posted here:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-tsvwg-01/session/tsvwg

 

Hint: RFC 4774 “Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field” is relevant background, especially Section 4.3 (Option 3:  Friendly Coexistence with Competing Traffic).

 

Thanks, --David (with apologies for extending the IETF practice of just-in-time slide preparation)

----------------------------------------------------------------

David L. Black, Sr. Distinguished Engineer, Dell EMC

Dell Technologies, Infrastructure Systems Group

176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748

[phone]           Mobile: [phone]

[e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------