Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jonathan,


> On Jun 9, 2020, at 17:01, Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Jun, 2020, at 5:43 pm, Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Why don't you run the testing yourself to get the answers you look for?. 
> 
> Because we are looking for cases where SCReAM (and other L4S transports) fail - and we have already found sufficient such cases to raise objections.  We don't need to look further.
> 
> The burden of proof is now on you (and the rest of the L4S proponents) to show that these problems have been overcome.    This will require *changes* to L4S, and testing of an implementation of that changed specification.
> 
> Sebastian merely listed a few general scenarios where we know L4S does badly.  

	[SM] Well, to be generous, these are important scenarios where we know way too little about L4S' robustness and reliability. The recent testing indicates that L4S has ample opportunity to improve its performance/safety under these conditions.
	Now, I have a hard time believing that none of the engineers and companies that opted for L4S did this based purely on the obviously overly-optimistic promises in the L4S drafts and the RITE project. So, I would really appreciate if data that was acquired in the process of seeing whether L4S was/is fit for roll-out and implementation in silicon (if that actually happened at all) could be presented here on the list.

Best Regards
	Sebastian


> Those are tests which you should run internally as part of your R&D cycle, and then present results of, in order to give us confidence that L4S can safely be deployed.

	[SM] +1.

Sebastian


> 
> - Jonathan Morton
>