Re: [tsvwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-19: (with COMMENT)

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

>> This paragraph:
>>
>>         To enable L4S, the standards track Classic ECN spec. [RFC3168]
>>         has had to be updated to allow L4S packets to depart from the
>>         'equivalent to drop' constraint.  [RFC8311] is a standards track
>>         update to relax specific requirements in RFC 3168 (and certain
>>         other standards track RFCs), which clears the way for the
>>         experimental changes proposed for L4S.  [RFC8311] also
>>         reclassifies the original experimental assignment of the ECT(1)
>>         codepoint as an ECN nonce [RFC3540] as historic.
>>
>> also stood out as being useful whilst the document was being developed, but
>> perhaps less useful in a published RFC, and hence I did wonder whether this
>> paragraph could be elided or shortened.
> 
> [BB] I know at least one of our WG chairs (David Black) likes drafts to 
> explain the disposition of all the related RFCs, and I tend to agree. 
> 'Cos history is otherwise easily forgotten.

Something like that ...

The middle sentence of that paragraph is important to explain why this draft does not update RFC 3168.  The last sentence of that paragraph is important because it explains why the ECT(1) codepoint is usable in practice, namely that its prior usage for the ECN nonce is now only of historical interest.  The first sentence serves to introduce the other two ...

... overall, I agree with Bob's sentiment that we ought to leave a record of what was done.

Thanks, --David (WG chair and RFC 8311 author)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2022 11:04 AM
To: Robert Wilton; The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-19: (with COMMENT)


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 

Rob,

Thank you for reading and reviewing this.
Pls see [BB] inline...

On 25/08/2022 15:24, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-19: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!LpKI!icInSGOcpge0ID2F6l6hoq_7KRZcmCEA1NhZAz-7W0BIbcgguu0gbktSErGTZfxhg-8xJyEtPeKG5vJB$  [ietf[.]org]
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch/__;!!LpKI!icInSGOcpge0ID2F6l6hoq_7KRZcmCEA1NhZAz-7W0BIbcgguu0gbktSErGTZfxhg-8xJyEtPZQZsIFq$  [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the spec.  This is outside of my area of expertise, and I've been
> time constrained this week, but I found this document to be pretty easy to read
> and certainly the technology sounds interesting and potentially very useful so
> that you for your work on this.
>
> I guess that my only criticism, and it is not easily/readably actionable, is
> that some of the sections felt a little bit repetitive from early parts in the
> document, and perhaps earlier parts of the document could possible benefit from
> being shortened or made more concise.  One obvious change that has already been
> suggested by others, getting the abstract down to a single paragraph summary
> would probably be a fairly easy improvement.  Other than that, I don't really
> have any other actionable suggestions, sorry.

[BB] I think we all know this. But the draft has had to be adapted 
multiple times to accommodate opposing views in the WG. So we really 
don't want to enter into a major re-drafting exercise on text that has 
managed to finally pass WGLC after 7 years of wrangling through 28 
revisions.

My view is that, given the recent first interop involved so many 
companies and went so well, and we already have two more planned betw 
now and Nov, I'm hoping we're likely to start the process of progressing 
from EXP track to STDS in a perhaps a couple of years. That would be a 
good time to start writing with a clean sheet, not now (please). Hope 
you understand.

>
> This paragraph:
>
>         To enable L4S, the standards track Classic ECN spec. [RFC3168]
>         has had to be updated to allow L4S packets to depart from the
>         'equivalent to drop' constraint.  [RFC8311] is a standards track
>         update to relax specific requirements in RFC 3168 (and certain
>         other standards track RFCs), which clears the way for the
>         experimental changes proposed for L4S.  [RFC8311] also
>         reclassifies the original experimental assignment of the ECT(1)
>         codepoint as an ECN nonce [RFC3540] as historic.
>
> also stood out as being useful whilst the document was being developed, but
> perhaps less useful in a published RFC, and hence I did wonder whether this
> paragraph could be elided or shortened.

[BB] I know at least one of our WG chairs (David Black) likes drafts to 
explain the disposition of all the related RFCs, and I tend to agree. 
'Cos history is otherwise easily forgotten.
I accept that this para is about process history, not technical. But 
that also sometimes needs to be rediscovered in future.

So I'll leave this as well, if you don't mind.

Thank you for taking the time to write up anyway.

Regards



Bob


>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bobbriscoe.net/__;!!LpKI!icInSGOcpge0ID2F6l6hoq_7KRZcmCEA1NhZAz-7W0BIbcgguu0gbktSErGTZfxhg-8xJyEtPcLMwzkx$  [bobbriscoe[.]net]