Re: [tsvwg] Consensus call on ECT(1)

["Scheffenegger, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

Count me in camp 1 (an input signal into the network, while retaining
the ECT0 / ECT1 semantics of RFC3168 as an output).

Am 04.05.2020 um 20:15 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> **
>
> *In this email thread, please state, concisely, which of the following
> viewpoints on ECT(1) you prefer. Please have extended discussion in a
> different thread. If you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion on the
> list, you may email the tsvwg chairs directly ([e-mail]). *
>
> *
>
> If you did not attend the 27 April interim, please watch the meeting
> video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw3YKyeFxQU] for context on this
> question.
>
>
>  1.
>
>     I support using ECT(1) as an input signal to the network. This is
>     the approach consistent with the current L4S drafts. This position
>     does not mean that there are no remaining issues with L4S, but that
>     the remaining issues can be resolved by continued WG effort on the
>     current drafts.
>
>  2.
>
>     I support using ECT(1) as an output signal from the network. This is
>     consistent with SCE. If you believe L4S will not be safe for the
>     internet without significant architectural changes, you are in this
>     group.
>
>  3.
>
>     There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a
>     decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your
>     response.
>
>
> Please submit your opinion by 5/18/2020.
>
> *
>