Re: [tsvwg] closed L4S issue #20 on use of ECT(1)

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

> On 6/4/2020 2:20 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> > I did not see consensus. What I saw was the principal inventor of ecn
> > (kk), the ns3 maintainer, myself and a few others,
> > calling for more testing. Others on the SCE front, voted for option 2.
> >
> > Then there was a bunch of folk that had never participated on this
> > list before, voting.
> 
> We don't vote, and there never was a vote.? Many people with long 
> histories of participation in this working group and others expressed 
> their positions.? Some were sent offlist, which you would not have 
> seen.? All 3 co-chairs and the ADs collaborated on evaluating the total 
> set of inputs and deciding how to proceed. This was not done by counting 
> a vote, so there should be no concern about that.

What the chairs said, from my read of it, is that they are going to
go forward with L4S.  I did not see them declare ECT(1) as an input
being in consensus, and thus object to closing this issue as that
consenses is not in evidence.

L4S itself offers alternatives to use of ECT(1) and this issue is about
that selection even within the draft.  The issue may need reworded to
minimize references to SCE, but that does not remove the issue either.

Regards,
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [e-mail]