Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#28. Spec required)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,
[the last round of postings got cc'd to tsvwg-bounces not tsvwg. For the 
list, I've left it quoted in full below, then added to it. ]

On 14/05/2021 11:03, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Gorry, [Changed the subject line, and incremented the last issue 
> number you gave]
>
> On 14/05/2021 10:23, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>>>> [BB] Incidentally, as part of other changes requested by 
>>>>> implementers during the survey, we've changed the following:
>>>>> s/will need to be defined/is preferable/
>>>>>
>>>> [GF] Unsure that I do like "preferable" - because I don't wish to 
>>>> prejudge how TSVWG will handle new methods in future, and I would 
>>>> probably will need to re-read to check this. Although perhaps, I 
>>>> could now suggest:
>>>>
>>>> "As with all transport behaviours, each congestioncontrol will 
>>>> require a detailed specification (which could be published asan 
>>>> experimental RFC), following the guidelines for specifying new 
>>>> congestioncontrol algorithms in [RFC5033]."
>>>>
>>>
>>> [BB2] I understood that we had been asked to remove any indications 
>>> that specification of secret sauce (congestion controls) is 
>>> mandatory. I had altered the rest from "requirements" to 
>>> "recommendations", but I had missed this one.
>>>
>>>
>> [GF] I still think "specification required" is fine - This can be 
>> suggested as an EXP RFC, or it could be something else, but from the 
>> IETF WG viewpoint it seems to me that a specification is needed.
>>
>
> [BB] I have to push back here on behalf of all the implementers who 
> objected to being required to document CCs.
>
> From the tsvwg minutes of IETF-110:
> Koen presents the Prague requirements survey regarding
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id
> Strong objections from implementers to documentation-only requirements.
> An alternative approach in the draft would be to encourage documentation.
>

[BB2] How about:

"As with all transport behaviours, a detailed specification (probably an 
experimental RFC) is expected for each congestion control, following the 
guidelines for specifying new congestion control algorithms in [RFC5033]."


Bob

>
>
>
> Bob
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/