Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

I support option 1: ECT(1) as an input signal.

There has been a lot of work on L4S and this is the most promising approach for me to transition to a better network service and use of ECT(1) as an input signal seems the most promising deployment path.



From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 4. May 2020 at 20:15
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)


In

this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).


If

you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU]

for context on this question.

1.

2.

3.    I support using ECT(1) as an input

4.     signal to the network. This is the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the current drafts.
5.
6.

7.

8.    I support using ECT(1) as an output

9.     signal from the network. This is consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this group.
10.
11.

12.

13.  There is a specific test or tests

14.   I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
15.


Please

submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.