Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 2021-05-08 at 18:15 +0100, Gorry (erg) wrote:
> See below 
> 
> > On 8 May 2021, at 16:15, C. M. Heard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:22 PM Gorry Fairhurst  wrote:
> > > [GF] You seem to keep arguing in a direction that would result
> > > in 
> > > 
> > > obsoleting RFC3168 before we progress L4S, but I don't agree
> > > this 
> > > 
> > > ordering is needed. The proposal I see is that the deployment
> > > takes 
> > > 
> > > place and then the IETF has the option to decide what happens
> > > next.
> > 
> > Seeing the word ***deployment*** instead of the word
> > ***experiment***
> > in the last sentence above,  I have to agree with Sebastian on this
> > point.
> > 
> > Mike Heard  
> 
> Well, I think that the purpose of an EXP RFC is to allow initial
> deployment, and to gain useful experience and then to understand any
> changes that are  needed to the Spec.
> 
> Nobody needs a RFC to do an experiment within their own controlled
> network. Anyway, this is what I will call  the “alternate ECN
> semantics RFC” already allows using a private DSCP.

As far as we know, that has not happened.

To use an analogy everyone should hopefully understand in 2021, L4S
only completed phase 1 (lab) trials, completely skipped phase 2 & 3
(placebo-controlled safety and efficacy) trials, and now wants an EUA
(Experimental Use Authorization) from the IETF.

I'll see myself out.

> I also know that In many cases, EXP specs do not result in any useful
> deployment, and that also is a risk.
> 
> Gorry
> 



Regards,



  
  


// Steve