Re: [tsvwg] Call for comments on the suggested publication timeline for draft-white-tsvwg-l4sops

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

So the one bid issue I see is that the whole length section
 6.  Operator of a Network Employing RFC3168 FIFO Bottlenecks  . .  13
is aimed at an audience which is in no way guaranteed to even notice this draft at all.
All networks employing RFC3168 (FIFO) Bottlenecks will see unexpected behavior once L4S-type ECN response traffic traverses their network and one of the rfc3168 nodes becomes the bottleneck. Those networks that are also actively deploying L4S (either for edge testing or in the core) will likely notice all L4S related drafts/RFCs, but networks not participating in the L4S experiment are IMHO unlikely to do so.

What is our intended way forward on how to make sure we actually reach the affected audience in a timely fashion?


If getting the OPs draft RFC'd will result in a noticeable higher likelihood of being stumbled over by affected networks, then RFC-ing soon seems wise. If the IETF document status has no effect on the L4S OPs text "visibility" then I would argue it does not really matter and keeping it open to avoid a .bis version seems equally productive as "declaring victory now" and start an .bis draft (so I think maybe those who actually will carry the burden of maintaining/updating the L4S-OPs RFC/draft should make that decision).


Regards
	Sebastian

P.S.: My preferred solution to all of this is not to ratify the main L4S drafts any time soon since I consider L4S not ready for internet-wide testing* which makes the decision about the OPs draft also less urgent. 

*) The way forward IMHO is to do _safe_ internet-scale experiments first with willingly participating parties (networks and end-hosts) using network paths engineered to minimize impact on unsuspecting third party traffic. Given the illustrious list of entities interested in L4S I am still puzzled why such tests have not been performed or why results have not been published (or at least a short summary posted to the list).




> On Mar 21, 2022, at 15:28, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The presentation in TSVWG on Monday 21st March 2022 indicated that the authors thought the document was complete and ready for review. The chairs previously indicated that publication could be delayed to wait for initial experience.  The chairs would appreciate feedback, to help decide.
> 
> So, does the WG have a  preference regarding when to publish the L4S Ops draft:
> 
> (1)  If the work is thought complete, there could be value in having a frozen draft while experience is gained, this could be updated with initial experience, before requesting publication as an RFC.
> 
> (2) The WG would not intentionally delay the request for the IESG to publish: If the work is thought complete, then we can finish this draft and publish in the short-term. The WG retains the option to decide to subsequently publish an updated RFC in the future.
> 
> Please could send an email to tsvwg, or to the tsvwg chairs by 8th March 2022.
> 
> Before any publication, the ID will be subject to normal review and WGLC comments.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Gorry Fairhurst
> (tsvwg co-chair)
>