Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure if your questions are for me or others, but responding to 
the specific questions:

On 10/1/2020 3:05 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> [SM] Before this de-rails any further into abstract concepts, could you please answer a few questions:
>
> 1) Why you consider it essential for these safety tests that the L4S drafts reach RFC status first? Put differently, what unsurmountable obstacles exist today that make it impossible for the required safety tests to be performed right now?

I haven't heard anyone state this.  Many people have expressed that they 
are eager for wider experimentation.  I don't know where the word 
'required' is coming from in your question, but it sounds like your own 
requirement rather than something these people agree with.


> 2) And on the topic of failure, will the WG commit to a set of criteria up-front to assess whether a potential L4S experiment succeeded or failed?

I think the operational document Greg has started editing will be 
capturing the collected thoughts on what people working with L4S in 
their networks should be looking for.   But I'm doubtful this is what 
you're asking for, since you seem to be after more of a global pass/fail 
flag on all of L4S, if I understand correctly.  I don't recall seeing 
such in any other Exp. RFC, so it seems unusual to expect.


> 3) What to do in the case of failure? Do you consider it out of scope for the WG to require the L4S drafrs ot include explicit section how to un-roll the experiment in case of failure and the expected longer-term side-effects? If no, pleas elaborate why?

I think this would be good scope for the operational document. There 
have been some discussions in the working group, and getting the ideas 
matured and into a draft seems like it would be productive.


At higher level, the thread has diverged significantly from issue #29 
subject matter and I think lost that focus.