Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jason,

given your deep involvement with an ISP that seems interested in deploying L4S, have you actually performed any tests in your network that could help assess L4S fitness for purpose? That is have you done any tests looking at how safe and how functional L4S is actually in a real network? While I do not hope for posting of internal data, it would be great if you could confirm whether your assessment of L4S fitness is based on data outside of data presented by the L4S proponents or critics in this thread and/or IETF meeting presentations?
I	t is well possible that I simply have not seen the data yet, that convincingly demonstrated L4S robustly and reliably delivering on its promises, but that is something I am happy to remedy, if such data exists.


Best Regards
	Sebastian

P.S.: Not a new question and not a question restricted to Jason. Anybody with independent data showing L4S achieving its promises (or failing to do so) please at least let the list know that you have seen such data.



> On Mar 20, 2021, at 15:33, Livingood, Jason <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> i believe nobody is asking for rocks (nor shrubberies) here, this is really about a convincing demonstration that the whole L4S design, consisting of network and protocol bits actually behaves like a coherent design and not two disjoint sub-projects that will never really harmonize?
> 
> Maybe I am being too simplistic with my operator mindset, but I'd prefer that any long-term decision be data-driven. And to collect significant data you need to conduct an experiment. Which in turn seems to potentially depend on an experimental RFC. So if we want the convincing demonstration sought & real data to drive a long-term decision then how is an experimental RFC not the logical next step?
> 
> Jason
> 
>