Subject: [tsvwg] L4S issue #23 on implementation status

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:58:57 +0100

Jake, Pete, tsvwg,

I believe we've done all that was asked on this one.
It started out as an issue with the age of the Linux kernel under the 
implementation, which has now been fixed.

Please say if you disagree.
(Pete, thx, you've already said in the issue that you don't need it open 
any more.)

There is a question of whether these issues have to be resolved by 
writing something in one of the L4S drafts.
I don't think that was what the issue started out as, but Jake added it 
as a suggestion.

Nonetheless, for the record: The L4S drafts do already cite current 
implementations as relevant examples (not in a specific implementation 
considerations section as suggested by RFC7942, but where they are 
relevant in the text):
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-dualq-coupled-aqm     cites some AQM 
implementations, and a couple of CC implementations to use over them
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id                     cites a few of the 
end-system implementations
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch                        cites all the above,

These citations also include two Linux netdev papers about the reference 
implementations (DualPI2 & TCP Prague resp.)

Cheers

Bob

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

---

From: "Holland, Jake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:03:29 +0000

Hi Bob,

I have no objections to closing this.  I think adding the implementation
status section would be a useful addition and I encourage doing so, but
this is just a suggestion, not a blocking comment, and it's reasonable
to defer and still close the issue if you have higher priorities.

Best regards,
Jake

On 4/23/20, 4:58 PM, "Bob Briscoe" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Jake, Pete, tsvwg,

Cheers

Bob

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:13:13 -0400

Since it looks like this issue has converged and Bob entered  a summary 
of the implementation status, I've closed it in the tracker.