Hi Min, Thanks for your feedback on the usefulness of this draft and your opinion about the term.
Fantel was used to cover the typical actions to the fast network notification, I agree it does not need restrict to only these actions. Let’s see what are the opinions of other participants, then we can make the decision about the term. Best regards, Jie From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 3:44 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03.txt Hi Jie, Thank you authors for this useful draft that IMO describes a real network problem. To the term discussion you brought up, I'm willing to see we don't use FANTEL any more. The major reason is that its meaning is restricted to Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing, while in my view there are crucial solutions not covered by that meaning, like Fast CNP (with or without proxy) and Fine-grained Flow Control in WAN. Cheers, Xiao Min Original From: Dongjie(Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: RTGWG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Cc: FANTEL <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Date: 2026年01月07日 17:19 Subject: [rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03.txt Dear all, We just submitted a new version (-03) of fantel problem statement draft to incorporate the comments received both on the list and offline. Thanks again for all the review, discussion and suggestions. The major changes in this version include: - A new coauthor joined: Reshad Rahman. - In the introduction section, some descriptions about the hardware capability in detecting network condition change at fine-grained time scales were added, which shows the gaps in fast network notifications. - The expected operating time range of fast network notifications was clarified. - The content in section 3 and section 4 was reorganized to improve readability and avoid duplication. - The descriptions about ECN mechanism were corrected. - Figure 1 was updated to better reflect the problem space in section 4.1. - Some explanation about the content of Table 2 was added. - Some description about multiple recipients of the same notification was added. - The security considerations section was enhanced. As always, further review and discussion are appreciated. One thing for open discussion is, whether we should keep using the term "FANTEL" which was introduced at the BoF, or change it to something like “FANN (FAst Network Notification)" to better reflect the scope of this work? Any feedback is welcome. The authors believe this version is in a good shape for the RTGWG to consider adoption or a consensus call. And we would like to see these problems being worked on in the IETF. Guidance from the AD and the RTG chairs are much appreciated. Best regards, Jie (on behalf of coauthors) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 4:19 PM To: Francois Clad (editor) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Luis M. Contreras <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mike McBride (editor) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; DURMUS Mehmet <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Francois Clad <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Hao Lu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jeffrey Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Luis Contreras <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mehmet Durmus <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Mike McBride <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ran Pang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Reshad Rahman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Rui Zhuang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Xiaohu Xu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Yadong Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Yongqing Zhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Zhaohui Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03.txt A new version of Internet-Draft draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Jie Dong (editor) and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement Revision: 03 Title: Fast Network Notifications Problem Statement Date: 2026-01-07 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 17 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement/ HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-03 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. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
