Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21
"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Fri, 05 June 2020 13:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2323A0819 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YR6JgsT6IQiG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4283A080E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 055DU70h030693; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:30:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 055DU7ju030692; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 06:30:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202006051330.055DU7ju030692@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <fe102e16-549a-0296-5ddb-c5ac532a8c60@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 06:30:07 -0700
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/4YSUy7N05x-NuwadvBQCMnKXDtU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:30:10 -0000
> I think that issue #16 and #17 (which are on L4S interactions with 3168
> ECN and FQ AQMs) are more specific and cover the same concern as issue
> #21 ("CE codepoint semantics").
>
> I am planning to close issue #21 as a duplicate, but wanted to run this
> by the WG first to make sure I haven't missed something.
IMHO, it would be better to solve the problems in the issues rather
than try to close the issues as duplicates of each other. If you
solve the problem in #16 and #17 it may very well include solving
the problem in #21 and you could then close them all.
Attempts to just "close" issues because they seem similiar
is a road rittled with pot holes. Good engineering would dictate
that you solve problems, not simply delete them from your objective
list because you think they are the same as another problem.
It appears to me that your trying to make the work load look
less by deleting the list of items that need to be solved,
this does not in anyway reduce the work that shall need to
be completed in order for L4S to be a viable solution.
--
Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
- [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [tsvwg] planning to close L4S issue #21 Rodney W. Grimes