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

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

Paul,

Going back to the original expression of concerns, and writing as a WG chair:

> ... i hope the chairs can explain why choice 3, more testing, was not the rough consensus they think they witnessed,
> and also, how the time value of a choice of 1 or 2 "now" is higher than the merit value of getting to an evidence-based consensus "later".

In reverse order, the goal is to get to an evidence-based consensus "later", e.g., as indicated by the following text from the announcement email:

	•	A successful WGLC on the drafts will require TSVWG rough consensus that the L4S experiment is safe to perform on the Internet.

I am confident that TSVWG does not currently have rough consensus that the L4S experiment is safe to perform on the Internet.  RFC 7282 is relevant background reading on rough consensus.

The only way that I could see choice 3 (more testing) being viewed as the outcome of the consensus call would be to assume that almost everyone who expressed support of choice 1 (ECT(1) as input) would also support choice 3.  Not only was that not the structure of the choices, but I am also confident that such an assumption would be incorrect.  Please keep in mind that choice 3 was not "more testing" in general - choice 3 specifically asked for specific tests:

	3.  	There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.

The time value in choosing a direction now is that the WG has spent most of the past year not getting much done in this area to the consternation (and more) of many of the people involved on all sides.  From a WG management perspective, it would be irresponsible of the WG chairs to allow this situation to continue for another year.

Thanks, --David (as a TSVWG chair)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:16 AM
> To: Paul Vixie; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)
> 
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> On 5/24/2020 8:19 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 May 2020 20:15:41 UTC Wesley Eddy wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 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.
> > it is clear, but it is your unofficial (no-hats) position, and also,
> > it does not address my concerns. what's our next step, per RFC 2026?
> 
> 
> It's my official position; I only said it wasn't coordinated with other co-chairs and
> ADs (because I wanted to provide a more timely response than coordination among
> 5 people would allow).
> 
> I'm happy to try to answer reasonable follow-up questions, of course. Right now, I'm
> curious why you don't think your concerns were addressed, since you asked the
> chairs to explain two things (why choice 3 wasn't the outcome, and why a timely
> choice as important), both of which I've tried to explain.  If there was a part of that
> explanation you want to follow up on, please do!
>