Re: [tcpm] WGLC on draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-07

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2009-3-4, at 3:46, [e-mail] wrote:
> I would not have any concerns if the draft were targeting
> Experimental, but it aims at Standards Track.
>
> Last year, at the first WGLC, all seemed rather stable, but now?
> Will the IESG challenge the soundness of the proposal, due to
> the recent change?
> How can we convince the IESG that the proposal is ripe for PS?

the working group is the body of technical expertise for a given area  
of work. The IESG needs to make sure that the working group output  
doesn't conflict with work in other areas or with the overall  
architecture, but it is IMO not our job to rehash the detailed  
technical work and argumentation that lead the working group down a  
path to a proposed solution. In other words, if the WG has consensus  
for something, the IESG will normally trust their judgement.

So, is the WG feels that ecnsyn is sufficiently well understood for  
PS, I don't see a reason why the IESG would disagree with that. (It  
sometimes happens, but that is rare.)

> Personally, I do not seriously expect additional research killing
> the arguments for the proposed algorithm, but additional results
> might still change the perspective slightly.
> I would appreciate to hear more than one voice from the research
> community regarding these considerations.
> A WGLC based on a single 'heavy-weight' +1 might not suffice to
> provide evidence of "strong support" to the IESG.

Additional results are always nice and useful, but the question at  
this time is: does the WG have consensus for asking for publication as  
PS? The purpose of the last call is to establish this consensus.

> Thus, the question arises whether the *normative* part of the
> proposal should better be split off into a relatively short PS
> document, accompanied by an Informational document with the
> detailed presentation of the motivation, quantitative research
> results and related work, etc.
> The former would be more concise and perhaps be preferred by
> implementers, and the latter could more easily be updated or
> amended if additional results became available.

I don't think splitting the document is useful.

Lars

> I'll try to resume the incremental review that had been paused
> in November quickly now and, if necessary, report more editorials
> to the authors within a few days.
>
> I do not insist on the split proposal made above, but I would
> appreciate it being discussed and the decision for progress
> be made based on consideration of the possible consequences
> of new results.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>  Alfred.
>
> -- 
>
> +------------------------ 
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.- 
> Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax:  
> -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR- 
> Sys.de                     |
> +------------------------ 
> +--------------------------------------------+
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm