Re: [tsvwg] Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Des\ar Lars,

thanks for your input, I will focus on one single point below.

> On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:13, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2020-11-19, at 11:43, Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> My opinion is that this work has stalled due to an endless discussion on the severity of the listed issues. Do you foresee that a year or so more of equally endless discussion will make anybody more wise ?
> 
> I'd hope so. But maybe I am optimistic.
> 
> One problem is that there have been two camps that are mostly talking to (or shouting at) each other. That makes it quite unappealing to join the discussion for someone who isn't part of those camps. I agree that more of that kind of "discussion" is not going to be helpful. I think the two camps need to realize that they need to convince the *rest of the WG* of their respective views, not each other.
> 
>> , between meetings there are only a few people engaged in this debate that floods the TSVWG list, it is a safe bet that most outsiders hit the delete button.
> 
> Yes. Because mostly, as I wrote above, the discussion is very inwardly focused, highly detailed, very fast-paced, references email threads that go back years (without pointers) and so makes it very, very hard for someone who has not participated to engage and stay engaged.
> [...]


So personally I am at a loss what to think about the L4S RFC-ing process in the WG. Since years there is real testing data showing L4S failing to achieve its promises and goals and yet most of the WG members seem seems to ignore this fact during the meetings. Meetings in which mostly political arguments for RFC-ing the L4S drafts are brought forward like, "I share L4S's goals and hence I endorse its implementation and design" (I am confident not all holding that position have scrutinized the drafts or found time to thoroughly look at the data), or "it took so long already, let's get Brexit^W L4S done" (which is as non-technical as it can get, and not really appropriate for a proposal with demonstrated side-effects on the existing internet traffic). None of these repeated calls to a LC make any dent into the problem that the data shows L4S is not there yet.

	I apologize for not referencing old e-mail threads, but I do try to take care to always include links to data slides and I cite (and link) relevant text from existing RFCs and the L4S drafts. I try to put together the L4S promises (draft text) with data showing where promise and reality seem to diverge. I also try to highlight where I believe the text to be either confusing or outright wrong. What else can I do to engage others (like the impressive number of folks showing interest in progressing L3S in the April interim meeting) into a round of closer scrutiny?


Best Regards
	Sebastian