Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

Hello, this is my own attempt to answer your questions/concerns, not 
necessarily matching what other co-chairs or our ADs would say, though 
we did coordinate on evaluating the consensus call, and the original 
statement of results.

Just to make sure it's clear, this was not a WGLC on any of the drafts.  
It was about finding direction on one particular issue that has been an 
active part of the discussion for around a year ("what to do with 
ECT(1)?"), and for which there is a broad desire to move forward somehow 
on.  We tried to be clear that there is still work to be done in this 
selected direction for the WG to make sure the technology is safely 
deployable, before we do a WGLC.  Pruning the other possible directions 
helps to focus on that work, and getting to the WGLC will be based on 
technical merit.

Specifically on your question of why choice 3 ("more testing") was not 
the rough consensus on how to use ECT(1), I don't think the responses 
indicated that we had enough energy or bodies to work in this direction, 
though there were some helpful points that people with choice 3 response 
made about what we should be looking for while proceeding in the choice 
1 direction, that I think we are all taking into account.

Joe and others have asked about a "do nothing" (or "none of the above") 
choice that was missing from the poll.  If there were inconclusive 
results to the poll, I suppose that would have been a default state we 
would fall into.   This would basically be maintaining the status quo 
with regard to ECT(1) usage, and have both L4S and SCE needing to find 
alternative ways to function. The inputs we received show that this 
would not have been a favorable option to the group.

I hope this is all more clear and addresses your questions/concerns, and 
sorry if it wasn't evident in the original response we chairs had 
coordinated on.