Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: Architecture
draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-17
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-03-17
|
17 | Gorry Fairhurst | The write-ups have been available for review, and have been updated based on feedback. |
|
2022-03-17
|
17 | Gorry Fairhurst | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2022-03-17
|
17 | Gorry Fairhurst | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
|
2022-03-08
|
17 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some resolutions were not unanimously agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple existing implementations of the technology described, and around 25 vendors and operators have indicated intentions to experiment with the overall L4S technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. In addition, both other TSVWG co-chairs have closely reviewed and commented on earlier revisions of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - The selection of the L4S identifier (in the companion ecn-l4s-id document) is not specific to this architecture draft, but is at the root of a great deal of the lack of unanimous support. Since the beginning of this work, it was well understood that enhancing ECN involves tradeoffs in the choice of header encodings selected, since there are limited options in terms of the header bits, codepoints, and other fields like DSCP that can be leveraged. The working group went through a process of assessing the pros and cons of all of the options that were put on the table. The different weights that participants attach to the importance of these tradeoffs seems to be a major source of the inability to unanimously agree on the particular L4S usage of ECT1 (and CE). It was remarked in one WG meeting that we ideally would have 5 codepoints, but unfortunately need to live with 4 and engineer within that. As a possible supplement for the limited ECN codepoints, the working group considered pros and cons of different means of using DSCP values, multiple times over the life of these documents. Some participants preferred approaches relying on DSCP, based on their view of the tradeoffs. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the use of ECT(1) as an input to classification as in L4S to enable low latency traffic identification. SCE proponents propose that their alternative approach also can control latency, but make use of ECT(1) as an output to indicate finer-grained levels of congestion. One potential mitigation for some of these concerns is that the TSVWG plans to be an open forum for experimenters to continue to present data and other findings, where the WG can ask questions, explore whether specific concerns have manifested, and discuss potential further development and advancement of L4S along the Standards Track. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are very minor ID nits that can be corrected during publication. These are the instances reported of non-ASCII characters and the outdated references to the other L4S documents. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-03-08
|
17 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some resolutions were not unanimously agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple existing implementations of the technology described, and around 25 vendors and operators have indicated intentions to experiment with the overall L4S technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. In addition, both other TSVWG co-chairs have closely reviewed and commented on earlier revisions of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - The selection of the L4S identifier (in the companion ecn-l4s-id document) is not specific to this architecture draft, but is at the root of a great deal of the lack of unanimous support. Since the beginning of this work, it was well understood that enhancing ECN involves tradeoffs in the choice of header encodings selected, since there are limited options in terms of the header bits, codepoints, and other fields like DSCP that can be leveraged. The working group went through a process of assessing the pros and cons of all of the options that were put on the table. The different weights that participants attach to the importance of these tradeoffs seems to be a major source of the inability to unanimously agree on the particular L4S usage of ECT1 (and CE). It was remarked in one WG meeting that we ideally would have 5 codepoints, but unfortunately need to live with 4 and engineer within that. As a possible supplement for the limited ECN codepoints, the working group considered pros and cons of different means of using DSCP values, multiple times over the life of these documents. Some participants preferred approaches relying on DSCP, based on their view of the tradeoffs. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the use of ECT(1) as an input to classification as in L4S to enable low latency traffic identification. SCE proponents believe their alternative approach also can control latency, but use ECT(1) as an output to indicate finer-grained levels of congestion. One potential mitigation for some of these concerns is that the TSVWG plans to be an open forum for experimenters to continue to present data and other findings, where the WG can ask questions, explore whether specific concerns have manifested, and discuss potential further development and advancement of L4S along the Standards Track. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are very minor ID nits that can be corrected during publication. These are the instances reported of non-ASCII characters and the outdated references to the other L4S documents. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-03-04
|
17 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-17.txt |
|
2022-03-04
|
17 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2022-03-04
|
17 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-02-24
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some resolutions were not unanimously agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple existing implementations of the technology described, and around 25 vendors and operators have indicated intentions to experiment with the overall L4S technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. In addition, both other TSVWG co-chairs have closely reviewed and commented on earlier revisions of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - The selection of the L4S identifier (in the companion ecn-l4s-id document) is not specific to this architecture draft, but is at the root of a great deal of the lack of unanimous support. Since the beginning of this work, it was well understood that enhancing ECN involves tradeoffs in the choice of header encodings selected, since there are limited options in terms of the header bits, codepoints, and other fields like DSCP that can be leveraged. The working group went through a process of assessing the pros and cons of all of the options that were put on the table. The different weights that participants attach to the importance of these tradeoffs seems to be a major source of the inability to unanimously agree on the particular L4S usage of ECT1 (and CE). It was remarked in one WG meeting that we ideally would have 5 codepoints, but unfortunately need to live with 4 and engineer within that. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the use of ECT(1) as an input to classification as in L4S to enable low latency traffic identification. SCE proponents believe their alternative approach also can control latency, but use ECT(1) as an output to indicate finer-grained levels of congestion. One potential mitigation for some of these concerns is that the TSVWG plans to be an open forum for experimenters to continue to present data and other findings, where the WG can ask questions, explore whether specific concerns have manifested, and discuss potential further development and advancement of L4S along the Standards Track. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are very minor ID nits that can be corrected during publication. These are the instances reported of non-ASCII characters and the outdated references to the other L4S documents. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-21
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some resolutions were not unanimously agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple existing implementations of the technology described, and around 25 vendors and operators have indicated intentions to experiment with the overall L4S technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. In addition, both other TSVWG co-chairs have closely reviewed and commented on earlier revisions of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the use of ECT(1) as an input to classification as in L4S to enable low latency traffic identification. SCE proponents believe their alternative approach also can control latency, but use ECT(1) as an output to indicate finer-grained levels of congestion. One potential mitigation for some of these concerns is that the TSVWG plans to be an open forum for experimenters to continue to present data and other findings, where the WG can ask questions, explore whether specific concerns have manifested, and discuss potential further development and advancement of L4S along the Standards Track. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are very minor ID nits that can be corrected during publication. These are the instances reported of non-ASCII characters and the outdated references to the other L4S documents. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-21
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some were not widely agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the architecture described in the document. Several vendors and network operators have indicated intentions to experiment with this technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the use of ECT(1) as an input to classification as in L4S to enable low latency traffic identification. SCE proponents believe their alternative approach also can control latency, but use ECT(1) as an output to indicate finer-grained levels of congestion. One potential mitigation for some of these concerns is that the TSVWG plans to be an open forum for experimenters to continue to present data and other findings, where the WG can ask questions, explore whether specific concerns have manifested, and discuss potential further development and advancement of L4S along the Standards Track. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are only very minor nits noted for outdated document references, that can easily be fixed in conjunction with AD review comments. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-13
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some were not widely agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the architecture described in the document. Several vendors and network operators have indicated intentions to experiment with this technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There was a combined last call for this and the other two main L4S documents. During that last call, it was clear that while a majority strongly supports the work and is eager to experiment with the technology, there are still also a number of participants who have concerns and/or prefer alternatives to L4S. The working group devoted considerable time, including multiple focused interim meetings in order to understand objections and try to address or mitigate all concerns. It is clear that while there are still some technical disagreements, there is a great deal of support and even wider than normal support for going forward with this work; spanning industry, including vendors, network operators, and congestion control researchers. There were very specific technical concerns and disagreements with the other 2 L4S drafts (on the ECN usage and DualQ). Specific concerns related to the content of those drafts are discussed in their writeups. - In this particular document there were some early objections related to use of the term "classic" for traditional non-L4S transports and queues, though no superior term was able to be agreed on, and only a small number of people seemed unhappy with "classic". - More substantially, there were concerns raised about the overall state of development and study of the combined L4S architecture elements, particularly the compliant transport protocols. The TCP Prague reference code had some issues discovered (and fixed), and some of the working group participants did not feel like it was mature enough nor were the results of tests encouraging enough for them to support L4S advancing. Note that other L4S transports beyond just TCP Prague have been under development by other groups, who reviewed the L4S drafts and reported on their capabilities to meet L4S requirements with their transports. - Some of the objecting participants have proposed another technology (SCE) to enhance ECN differently, and incompatibly with L4S and this architecture. After careful consideration and a focused interim, the working group strongly supported the goal of vastly reducing latency that is inherent to L4S but not SCE. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are only very minor nits noted for outdated document references, that can easily be fixed in conjunction with AD review comments. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes - all are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-13
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: The working group largely supports and is enthusiastic about L4S technology, which this document is a part of. It was last called along with 2 other L4S documents. There is a wider than normal level of support that has been expressed for this work, but it is not unanimous. There are also some WG participants who have concerns about L4S or prefer an alternative approach. The working group had many long email threads and conducted several interim meetings focused on L4S, its goals, technical challenges, and concerns with the approach and potential impact on Internet safety. Full agreement was not obtained in all cases, but significant work was done to address the issues that were agreed upon, and each concern was considered in detail by the working group, even if some were not widely agreed with. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the architecture described in the document. Several vendors and network operators have indicated intentions to experiment with this technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? TODO (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are only very minor nits noted for outdated document references, that can easily be fixed in conjunction with AD review comments. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are (correctly) no IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-13
|
16 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This is indicated properly and is the proper type of RFC since this describes the architecture for L4S, while other Experimental RFCs describe the transport behaviors for use of the L4S identifier and DualQ that is one of the possible queueing options compatible with this architecture. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: (from abstract) This document describes the L4S architecture, which enables Internet applications to achieve Low queuing Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S). The insight on which L4S is based is that the root cause of queuing delay is in the congestion controllers of senders, not in the queue itself. With the L4S architecture all Internet applications could (but do not have to) transition away from congestion control algorithms that cause substantial queuing delay, to a new class of congestion controls that induce very little queuing, aided by explicit congestion signalling from the network. This new class of congestion controls can provide low latency for capacity-seeking flows, so applications can achieve both high bandwidth and low latency. The architecture primarily concerns incremental deployment. It defines mechanisms that allow the new class of L4S congestion controls to coexist with 'Classic' congestion controls in a shared network. These mechanisms aim to ensure that the latency and throughput performance using an L4S-compliant congestion controller is usually much better (and rarely worse) than performance would have been using a 'Classic' congestion controller, and that competing flows continuing to use 'Classic' controllers are typically not impacted by the presence of L4S. These characteristics are important to encourage adoption of L4S congestion control algorithms and L4S compliant network elements. The L4S architecture consists of three components: network support to isolate L4S traffic from classic traffic; protocol features that allow network elements to identify L4S traffic; and host support for L4S congestion controls. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? TODO Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the architecture described in the document. Several vendors and network operators have indicated intentions to experiment with this technology. Personnel: Wesley Eddy is the document shepherd and Martin Duke is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the document myself, and believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Since the document deals with transport, congestion control, packet marking, and queuing behavior, there can be security, operations, internet, and routing area interests. There has been a healthy mix of academic, industry/vendor, and operator participation in this work, and a breadth of reviews have been incorporated. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no personal concerns of my own. However, there have been concerns raised in the working group, discussed in question 9 below. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? TODO (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Some participants may feel strongly enough against L4S to consider an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. TODO (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). TODO (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A - there are no formal languages used. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A. |
|
2022-02-01
|
16 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-16.txt |
|
2022-02-01
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2022-02-01
|
16 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-12-24
|
15 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-15.txt |
|
2021-12-24
|
15 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-12-24
|
15 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-08
|
14 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-14.txt |
|
2021-11-08
|
14 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-11-08
|
14 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-07
|
13 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-13.txt |
|
2021-11-07
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-11-07
|
13 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-01
|
12 | Gorry Fairhurst | Added to session: IETF-112: tsvwg Mon-1430 |
|
2021-10-25
|
12 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-12.txt |
|
2021-10-25
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-10-25
|
12 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-10-25
|
11 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-11.txt |
|
2021-10-25
|
11 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-10-25
|
11 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-08-27
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | Started 7/29, should wrap up 8/27. |
|
2021-08-27
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-07-21
|
10 | Gorry Fairhurst | Added to session: IETF-111: tsvwg Mon-1430 |
|
2021-07-01
|
10 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-10.txt |
|
2021-07-01
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-07-01
|
10 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-05-21
|
09 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-09.txt |
|
2021-05-21
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2021-05-21
|
09 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-05-19
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2021-03-09
|
08 | David Black | Added to session: IETF-110: tsvwg Wed-1530 |
|
2020-11-17
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Added to session: IETF-109: tsvwg Wed-1430 |
|
2020-11-15
|
08 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-08.txt |
|
2020-11-15
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2020-11-15
|
08 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-27
|
07 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-07.txt |
|
2020-10-27
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe) |
|
2020-10-27
|
07 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-10
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2020-07-27
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | Added to session: IETF-108: tsvwg Thu-1100 |
|
2020-03-09
|
06 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-06.txt |
|
2020-03-09
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-09
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Greg White … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2020-03-09
|
06 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-20
|
05 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-05.txt |
|
2020-02-20
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-02-20
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> |
|
2020-02-20
|
05 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-19
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Added to session: interim-2020-tsvwg-01 |
|
2020-01-09
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2019-07-16
|
04 | Gorry Fairhurst | Added to session: IETF-105: tsvwg Fri-1220 |
|
2019-07-08
|
04 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-04.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> |
|
2019-07-08
|
04 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-04-25
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2018-10-22
|
03 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-03.txt |
|
2018-10-22
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-10-22
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> |
|
2018-10-22
|
03 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-09-23
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2018-07-19
|
02 | David Black | Added to session: IETF-102: tsvwg Thu-1810 |
|
2018-07-19
|
02 | David Black | Removed from session: IETF-102: tsvwg Thu-1550 |
|
2018-07-19
|
02 | David Black | Added to session: IETF-102: tsvwg Thu-1550 |
|
2018-03-22
|
02 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-02.txt |
|
2018-03-22
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-03-22
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> |
|
2018-03-22
|
02 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-03-22
|
01 | David Black | Added to session: IETF-101: tsvwg Thu-1550 |
|
2017-10-30
|
01 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-01.txt |
|
2017-10-30
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-10-30
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Koen Schepper <koen.de_schepper@nokia.com>, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>, Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> |
|
2017-10-30
|
01 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-07-18
|
00 | David Black | Added to session: IETF-99: tsvwg Tue-1330 |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Wesley Eddy | Notification list changed to Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Wesley Eddy | Document shepherd changed to Wesley Eddy |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Wesley Eddy | This document now replaces draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch instead of None |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Bob Briscoe | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-00.txt |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Bob Briscoe | Set submitter to "Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>", replaces to draft-briscoe-tsvwg-l4s-arch and sent approval email to group chairs: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-05-05
|
00 | Bob Briscoe | Uploaded new revision |