IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 61BA13A09D9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 GafDWME9Fynh for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF363A09DB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cE82kE9apBimD73TVgJhuGQr6AS4fKJML8gm/Dagzqo=; b=0VzoAbiKnLNfz7Rbs8oD/B/if 7y4UbkD2eI7gW1TJVUYs1M9LhFR+ejC1BwJJmAefbAL4AkKvBjm0/3TI88hD3xpEgC1jbv4M9TKDU E28qJnxyZjAyd1u+7YycQvEI/7uNeRoN6KzfBhko778ISuMaZMnrrpJihjMyCbzrHoG0znhOfEcCv Cfl2fQ2ex/bqMl84RDdfBkZLe+NhI9cslG08tvS6M5UMl1rpkgC1cqhxWkprCk4vVxJlrCPV/lXr6 fZclc0V2Mi8J5f1U09LkebFhGlPZUKbjNqZTLBPFC1W+F118c5QXcAmUnadA2C7nfM1IOp5X9Vc/y 3Zm3Ja8/Q==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:60828 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jcExI-004JZa-Oy; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:11:53 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA4F2DA2-4C9D-4331-AED4-771AED514A07"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:11:48 -0700
Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <43974965-63E3-4D8F-A375-0A8BF039CDC1@strayalpha.com>
References: <d182f539-e0a2-e924-9556-db6577f47357@mti-systems.com> <3228077.bNJ4EoEDyu@linux-9daj> <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com>
To: Wes Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/CaDfsVwqDi4el9zEa2yKlQ89ir4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)
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, 22 May 2020 21:11:59 -0000


> On May 22, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

You asked whether we want to eat chicken or fish. You didn’t give us a choice of not dining.

So sure, the conclusion was one of the pre-determined paths. All you know right now is that there is more interest in one than the other.

An alternate conclusion would be that we don’t NEED to move forward with either of these at this time. I guess if the goal is to align effort in the WG, that’s fine.

But we have not seen a question that suggests either approach overcomes the “first, do nothing” approach - which frankly ought to be our first answer, in this WG.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email