Re: [tsvwg] Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap

Sebastian Moeller <> Thu, 19 November 2020 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863DD3A0949 for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:16:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8kt3WchzLYqg for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277753A0990 for <>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:15:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1605784541; bh=vW97SXiyeLe3mk3udVuLMftF+tfOPfHfFc8CRNU7jWk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=XrqOxtrtJ3phET1NG7org+o+zqwNX9gHpPwN3OY3xz9a3JhHCT0ukzu2F2dnjBE50 00lYDF/7uZstjNLODpbVzi+2uZFgayd9RH+5pJ7iLdaMpUKje12w4hryif8NW5IILm x5+MUK68lbhcKvLbh4F+nQWdTLqGSmJ9S3ZhVESM=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx004 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MCKBc-1kWOFz1nE2-009MC7; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:15:41 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Sebastian Moeller <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:15:39 +0100
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:N22i4rCmLMEE1lJ1To6qSs/J8Zc5GImV0y9T9j2dqdkuS7XPHZz kpnERPCLuZNnV9TQjjjoUIB/oFF4ctCi4GU8Wv4bn1nNuJDOWjoRpWHf4BPEB2R66CsUJyb DN2G9LKJFZxyA4RjOQatRnIPDhy70XlcSOhvbh3gzDPTM5NwZGkYvIHnDzzx7mNTBvld+do JvDtV11j2q9LDqxjZQ7Ew==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Xzi6qjosxIA=:BoxvBgXvsds6NvGiTYIvDS UqJrKWTfKnyPpx66ZRpWOwo4aBnmY0AacOB+Iz9jdJOptXk5NNNZUjqj+qGpfWt7MFgC8YF2o r2Wc/Qb6s5TER3DcgWUt9zpWFmFVG5Vhmf9wUJoFWqbcSyICe0/EA6+5KEDpqROay6w3NjzVA AS8T1YUfOl7mXjt6DIv9xfChr9ajv5TsFjcQecpwWrtFiUuLikn9AQtuDjJTxr67zZMw1a3Sd UwcqMTmqbsev7xOAFzU0/Qs96F2kscduzeL7D6X8hdNfZiIIpfIluJnvPpDncRuUOKOj1SW16 eT5usQsYbhZt2+suoTi3izFWJLQUikqAOqeZqnTh8YiJA7+eqAvMBUgg9uyRUhv5Z2vZhiVPx +7u80pU5slCEfdqvFKki61+hNkfzYFLzABFF2CQAY/TN7ryWKDbWV932sjpM8c87txdTBOjjU qINax9b/qetSV3iEXpRA75IZ956lt2Pd4Q3+O+YQxjoOmUypNA0ugG6wNlqX5WeLI/RClUc9U MlbC2ULfWJ7+wkvK3fGuUU3PSMtyx//kC71zrx8M0UDFYLZXWD+jk8ioI9koNG2VD6fFLRJpb +c8Yv5+hPm1zQT6P+2+hlxhJm4FLkpxF1ZsO1VY5jbkhhxBuCoch7pJyPWIEoexC/XKo5OD+3 gkzScL/1spzLatnBfMZUrgpbLpHzWf6ISbRsCGx1XWol9YrD19Tj9iAh9eB8VDlyu3RAG//qw gdSSkMOqIFV+FTg7nBMDKgqv2zr7I3q9SWa177lQR3xIXwV5/lAxl4wcG03y13Ow+ZRUmPwoQ ZcLwN2oNGwWYp26hZX2/cnrV42XIN3hniL/3IQ/rAb5FW3gOLaD0d0JdJ/FX6FWBT2fGDTyb8 uNKxmCqw5Nl+Z2Y0plJw==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:16:07 -0000

Des\ar Lars,

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

> On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:13, Lars Eggert <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2020-11-19, at 11:43, Ingemar Johansson S <> 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