Re: [tsvwg] start of WGLC on L4S drafts: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id, GF Issues seen in WGLC

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Just catching up on the email threads - and "yes" these appear to h`ve 
been addressed. I'll review at a later stage,

Gorry

On 07/11/2021 22:02, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Gorry,
>
> Thank you for this these points. See [BB] inline...
>
> On 13/08/2021 12:11, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> I have reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-19 in WGLC.
>>
>> I think this draft provides methods that address an important need - 
>> to provide techniques to control end to end latency. I provided a 
>> detailed review of a recent previous version of this ID, and the 
>> issues I found then have been addressed. Thanks editors. I have 
>> checked this version and found the three additional issues below.
>>
>> I therefore would support *as an individual* progression of this 
>> draft for publication as EXP.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Gorry
>> (as individual in tsvwg)
>>
>> P.S. I also have a small number of editorial NiTs that I will send 
>> separately to the list.
>> ---
>>
>> ISSUE 1: To-Do
>>   “Once disabled, all packets of all ECN codepoints will
>>    receive Classic treatment and ECT(1) packets MUST be treated as if
>>    they were {ToDo: Not-ECT / ECT(0) ?}.”
>> - This RFC-2119 statement is incomplete.
>> - This issue needs to be discussed.
>>
>
> [BB] It has been discussed on the list, and Not-ECT was selected.
>
>>
>> ---
>> ISSUE 2: Appendix A.
>> This appendix is informative, and as such I think we should be 
>> careful to not imply this as expressing requirements.
>>
>> However, the current text contains several lines mentioning 
>> “requirements”, including the title!
>>
>
> [BB] You're right. This appendix was copied over from the original 
> problem statement when the normative requirements were written in the 
> body, but without being change to clarify everywhere that it is 
> rationale for the requirements. And since I've sometimes been sloppy...
>
>>   - is it possible to express this differently and avoid any 
>> ambiguity as the document receives more review?
>> I could suggest a few small changes which would seem to me resolve 
>> this issue:
>> The title likely needs to be renamed, because it creates most of the 
>> problem: “The 'Prague L4S Recommendations’ or “The 'Prague L4S Design 
>> Recommendations’, or similar.
>>
>
> [BB] Titles:
> A. Rationale for the 'Prague L4S Requirements'
> A.1 Rationale for the Requirements for Scalable Transport Protocols
>
>> Also these small number of specific lines seem to need careful 
>> rewording, e.g.:
>> /safety improvements (requirements)/safety improvements ()/
>> /implementation of the requirements./implementation of these 
>> recommendations./
>> /Requirements for Scalable Transport Protocols/Features for Scalable 
>> Transport Protocols/
>> /The requirement is written/This is written/
>> /Similarly to the requirement in Appendix A.1.4 this 
>> requirement/Similarly to Appendix A.1.4, this/
>> /Having said all the above, the approach recommended in the 
>> requirements is to monitor/Having said all the above, the approach 
>> recommended is to monitor/
>>
>
> [BB] I've searched every occurrence of 'require-' and made sure it 
> either refers to the normative requirement in the body, or it doesn't 
> say require.
> I should post the draft soon, so you'll be able to check the diff.
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> ISSUE 3: References
>> -Please confirm the intended status of:
>> [I-D.briscoe-docsis-q-protection]
>>
>
> [BB] See previous response to the same question in your other review, 
> which you confirmed was satisfactory.
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> On 29.07.21, 18:18, "tsvwg on behalf of Wesley 
>>> Eddy"<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>     This message is starting a combined working group last call on 3 
>>> of the
>>>     L4S drafts:
>>>
>>>     - 
>>> Architecture:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch/ 
>>>
>>>
>>>     - DualQ:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled/
>>>
>>>     - ECN 
>>> ID:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id/
>>>
>>>     The WGLC will last through 4 weeks from today, and then we'll 
>>> see what
>>>     to do next.  Please submit any comments you have on these to the 
>>> TSVWG
>>>     list in that timeframe.
>>>
>>>     The chairs are considering a possible virtual interim following the
>>>     close in order to work through feedback received.
>>>
>>>     The work on the L4S operational guidance draft is continuing in
>>>     parallel, but that draft is not being last called yet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

-- 
G. Fairhurst, School of Engineering