Re: [tsvwg] Gorry Fairhurst Individual thoughts on choosing whether/how to advance ECN work.

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

On 24/05/2020 13:37, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Gorry,
>
> On 24 May 2020 10:01:33 CEST, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2020 05:21, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>> I think I'll leave Paul and Sebastian to comment further in this
>> vein.
>>>    - Jonathan Morton
>> If you decide to comment more, could you please finish that very
>> quickly
>> - the WG has decided to work on L4S.
> [SM] On the danger of stating the obvious, that decision to work on L4S makes it quite important to highlight and discuss all the pain-points of the current L4S design, implementation and drafts. Unless I misunderstand what "work on L4S" is supposed to entail...
>
>
>> There are topics that the WG needs to address, and I think this
>> discussion is not helping the WG make progress.
> [SM] For better or worse, this WG will be held partially accountable, for L4S meeting it's claims, so I consider discussion of those claims, with the eventual goal of finally de-hyping the draft text, pretty on-topic and relevant for the mailing list.
>
> BUT, since that is so obvious that I assume I must be misunderstanding your point, so please show me where/how.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>          Sebastian
>
>> Gorry

I think it would be more normal to discuss or provide comments on a specific section of a document. If there are claims there, then maybe these do need to be looked at - it's not uncommon that the text around performance/merits in a spec need to be reviewed before a document completes WGLC.

Gorry