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".
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.
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.
Net: While I see a nice sketch of a topic for investigation, I do not
see enough clarity for adoption.
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-statement-03
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dong-fantel-problem-statement-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]
