On Friday, November 29, 2019, 9:51:21 PM GMT, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Second, I gained a couple of key insights that I think will help to solve > SCE's remaining shortcomings. If we can apply them successfully by > Vancouver, we'll be able to stand up and say not only that SCE meets *all* of > the Prague Requirements, while L4S is currently missing two of them, > but that we've also solved the single-queue problem. I'm deliberately > leaving the technical details vague until we've done some testing, but I will > say > that the name we've come up with is amusing. I don't see what you gain by going after the Prague requirements. They're internal requirements for a TCP that would fulfill the L4S goals if classified into the L4S side of a DualQ AQM: 'Packet Identification' means that the L4S AQM can identify L4S supporting flows. This seems like a distraction from your main pitch to me. It would seem better to compare against the actual goals of L4S (AFAICT, low latency at the 99th percentile, in the presence of Reno-compatible flows, with some fairness requirement which I increasingly don't understand). Alex _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
