Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #17 on FQ interaction

[Luca Muscariello <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:00 PM Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/4/2020 9:56 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >> On 4 Feb, 2020, at 5:40 pm, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like we have mostly converged on the L4S issue tracker entry
> for FQ interaction:
> >>
> >> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/17
> >>
> >> Greg's last comment there sums it up well, I think.  Based on the
> threads and meeting notes, I'm not sure if anything specific needs to be
> done to the L4S drafts, other than making sure that the TCP Prague
> discussion there reflects what the testing has revealed is important to be
> done.
> >>
> >> So, I think when the drafts are updated, we will be able to close this
> issue.  Please correct if this is wrong.
> > I have just added https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/17#comment:10
> to reflect my thoughts on this issue.
>
> Thanks Jonathan; I have a quick follow-up question to make sure it's
> clear for the editors what their next steps should be.
>
> Is it sufficient if they're adding an open issues / future work section
> to list this as an area for potential research and improvement with the
> experimental L4S deployments and transports being created for it based
> on TCP Prague requirements?
>

Reading the discussion on the issue tracker I'm unable to understand
if the issue is fixed or there is a fundamental problem that can
happen in the wild. It looks like closely related to issue #16
with mitigation in presence of FQ.

Luca