Hi Joel, You're right that the focus of this document is on notification. The goal is to minimize the delivery time of the notification, and to provide fine-grained network condition information to enable prompt and precise actions. These enhancements in notification could help to improve the performance of the applications, including those that require very-low-loss delivery.
As for the applicable use cases, we believe fast network notification in general can help in all these use cases. It is understood that the delivery time and some specific processing can be different in some of these cases, while it is expected that the design principle and basic mechanism for fast notification could be shared. What we are doing at this stage is collecting all the required characteristics and information for fast network notifications, so as to show the general problem space. In the next step they could be further classified into common information and characteristics and scenario-specific information and characteristics using a detailed information model, which would be used to guide the solution design. Best regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2026 1:23 AM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [fantel] Re: [rtgwg] Re: Call for adoption: > draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03 (Ends 2026-01-30) > > If the focus is on notifications, and not on the responses to notifications, > then > issues such as very-low-loss delivery should be described as potential > results, > not as goals of the work. > > Separately, I think it is a mistake to conflate the intra-data center, > one-hop-wan, > and arbitrary communication path cases. The time and processing > constraints for these cases are VERY different, and likely useful notification > approaches are likely to be different (and some cases may not be amenable to > significant improvement). As such, at the very least I would expect > identification of problem spaces with different characteristics, and possibly > explicit statements that they should be addressed with different techniques. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 1/15/2026 10:13 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > > Hi Joel, > > > > Many thanks to your review and clarification questions. Please see replies > inline: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 5:09 AM > > To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: [rtgwg] Re: [fantel] Call for adoption: > draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03 (Ends 2026-01-30) > > > > I have several basic concerns with the draft. > > > > 1) The draft starts by asserting that there is a need for lossless traffic > delivery. It is possible you actually mean lossless. In which case I > consider > the target impossible for any general use network. It is mor elikely you mean > very low loss (e.g 1 in 10^6 packet loss over any 1 minute time period.) If > so, > you need to state that and not refer to "lossless". > > > > [Jie] Thanks for pointing this out. "Lossless" used in the abstract and the > introduction section refers to the expectation of some applications to the > network. This is similar to the target of Detnet on "zero congestion loss". > For > the network it is difficult to guarantee lossless in all scenarios and > situations, > what it network can do is to minimize packet loss and control the loss rate > below certain level (as you suggested), so that it does not impact the > performance of the applications. We can clarify this further in next revision, > and consider to use other word to avoid confusion. > > > > > > 2) Unless I missed it, other than in terms of examples the draft does not > seem to state whether it wants to solve an intra-data-center problem (a > interesting, important, and solvable problem), one hop wide are anetwork > ( aproblem where it may be possible to do something, depending upon the link > delay, srbitrary but special constructed wide area interconnects (demonstrated > to be addressable by throwing money at the problem), or arbitrary multi-use, > multi-hop wide area networks. The demands and difficulties of these > different cases are different. > > > > [Jie] The network scenarios you listed above are considered as potential use > cases of the fast notification mechanism. I agree there are differences in > these > cases, while in general fast notification would help to enable prompt and > precise action upon network condition changes. Thus it is not limited to any > specific network scenario. > > > > > > 3) There is also an assertion that "faster" responsiveness to issues is > needed. Without some quantification of what kind of speed is needed, I do > not see how this claim can be evaluated, nor how solutions can be considered. > > > > [Jie] Based on the discussion during the BoF and in RTGWG, in recent > revisions some text was added to the introduction and section 3 to quantify > the expected speed of fast notification (in the order of sub-milliseconds or > milliseconds), and why it is considered faster than existing mechanisms. > > > > > > Net: While I see a nice sketch of a topic for investigation, I do not see > enough clarity for adoption. > > > > [Jie] Hope the above can answer your clarification questions. > > > > [Jie] BTW, after the submission of the -03 version, we asked the WG to give > opinion on which term to use for this work. "Fantel" was previously used for > the BoF and in several drafts following that, while according to the > discussion > and feedbacks, we would focus on the notification part and not limit the > actions to TE and load balancing. Thus another term "FANN" was proposed for > "FAst Network Notification". We'd appreciate your opinion on which term is > better, or you are welcome to propose other terms. Thanks. > > > > Bes regards, > > Jie > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Joel > > > > On 1/15/2026 2:12 PM, Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker wrote: > >> This message starts a rtgwg WG Call for Adoption of: > >> draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03 > >> > >> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-01-30 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> Modern networks require adaptive traffic manipulation including > >> Traffic Engineering (TE), load balancing, flow control, and > >> protection, to support high-throughput, low-latency, and lossless > >> applications such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) /Machine Learning > >> (ML) training and real-time services. A good and timely > >> understanding of network operational status, such as congestion and > >> failures, can help to improve network utilization, enable the > >> selection of paths with reduced latency, and enable faster response > >> to critical events. This document describes the existing problems > >> and why a new set of fast network notification solutions are needed. > >> > >> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support > >> adoption of this Internet-Draft by the rtgwg WG. Comments to explain > >> your preference are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all > >> recipients of this message and include this message in your response. > >> > >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the > >> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP > >> 79 > [2]. > >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the > >> provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of > any. > >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy > >> can be found at [3]. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > >> > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement/ > >> > >> There is also an HTMLized version available at: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-fantel-problem-statem > >> ent-03 > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dong-fantel-problem-st > >> atement-03 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fantel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to > >> [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > fantel mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
