Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 30/09/2020 04:29, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> On 30 Sep, 2020, at 1:48 am, Greg White <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that the WG needs to honor the consensus position
> Let me be absolutely crystal clear:  There was NO consensus position established.  Please go back and read the statements by the Chairs if you are still unclear on that point.
>
> The Chairs made an executive decision, in the absence of consensus, to allow work to continue on L4S.  Progress is therefore expected on resolving the open issues to the satisfaction of the WG as a whole.  The SCE team is respecting that decision for the time being, but we will continue to call out deficiencies that have not been rectified and any further attempts to bypass the processes of the WG.
>
> Let me quote David Black once more, for emphasis:
>
>> 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.
> That is the central problem that L4S needs to resolve.  If it cannot do so, it should step aside so that alternative approaches to high-fidelity congestion control can be tried.
>
>   - Jonathan Morton

Specifically on the Interim outcomes: The currently chartered work items 
on L4S remain chartered, and the Chairs expect these to be requested for 
publication as RFCs, following a WGLC. That WGLC will (as usual) 
consider safety of the method for the proposed experimental deployment. 
There are also other ECN specifications that the WG is updating, which 
need to be finalised first.

I am confident there is energy in the Working Group to complete the 
current set of ECN-related specs, and I'd strongly encourage people to 
focus on offering text that allows this to now complete.

Gorry

(TSVWG Co-Chair)