Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,

On 6 May 2021 22:39:12 CEST, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Tom/David,
>
>Aha - I see now. Another possibility could be something like:
>
>"Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Ultra-Low Queuing
>Delay (L4S)" ??

[SM] I thought "ultra-low" is going to be replaced with "consistently low"?

Also if the ecn-id draft is considered a specification for protocols I very much would expect to see at least one fully functioning mostly-finished actual protocol being developed from that spec BEFORE standardisation as proof thar the spec itself is sufficiently complete and functional, no?
And TCP Prague with all its unfinished/partly abandoned? attempts at implementing the 'specification's' requirements is not that convincing that the spec is complete and reasonably implementable.
To be explicit, neither RTT-debiasing, nor rfc3168 detection are robustly and reliably tackled which is somewhat sobering given that the requirements exist for IIRC more than 5 years now...

Regards
        P.


>
>Gorry
>
>
>On 06/05/2021 21:30, Black, David wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> I'm the source of pushback here.  In my view, L4S is an interesting
>mix, as the L4S ID draft does not define a complete protocol - rather,
>it specifies the ECN marking mechanism and places requirements on the
>endpoint congestion control response without specifying that response
>in detail (e.g., to implement TCP Prague congestion control based on
>L4S, one also needs to also go look at a TCP Prague spec).
>>
>> I'd be happy with "mechanism" or "functionality" but I don't see a
>fully implementable "protocol" here.  What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks, --David
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tom Henderson
>> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:19 PM
>> To: Gorry Fairhurst
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> On 5/5/21 11:52 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>> =================================================================
>>>
>>> *5. Please be careful with the words here.*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> This text:
>>>
>>> “This specificationdefines _the protocol to be used for_ a new
>network
>>>
>>> service called low latency, low loss and scalable throughput (L4S).”
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> ⁃This document does not define a protocol, so the words "_the
>protocol
>>> to be used for" _should be removed.
>> Gorry, on this point, I made the original suggestion to call this a
>> protocol document during the -13 review (email to the list on March
>7);
>> please see below my original comment regarding this.
>>
>> - Tom
>> Explicit Congestion Notification
>>   > (ECN) Protocol for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S)
>>
>>   >
>>   > Title
>>   >
>>   > The title of this draft suggests that the scope is narrowly
>defining
>>   > the identifier of L4S semantics, but the draft covers much more
>than
>>   > this; in fact, it perhaps it could more accurately be described
>as an
>>   > L4S protocol specification.  At the end of the abstract, the
>draft
>>   > states "This specification defines the rules that L4S transports
>and
>>   > network elements need to follow...", i.e. a protocol.  It also
>gets
>>   > into operational considerations and open questions for
>experimentation.
>>   >
>>   > Perhaps a broader title such as "" would better match
>>   > the contents.
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.