> On 29 Nov, 2019, at 10:08 pm, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > there are no minutes posted. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tsvwg-sessa-81-some-congestion-experienced-00 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tcpm-some-congestion-experienced-in-tcp-00
Those should both be the same slide deck. We got squeezed out of over half our expected talk time in TSVWG, and didn't get to present at all in TCPM (though we were able to comment from the floor on related AccECN matters) - we were just expecting to focus on one or two slides from the deck there. I think we got two big takeaways from IETF-106: First, that L4S is really floundering in their fundamental problems and has not yet been able to demonstrate any genuine solutions to them, and instead they're trying to bog us down in process. However, there is growing interest in SCE, despite the relatively small footprint we still have officially. 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. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to fix a computer… - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
