Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

+1 (as an individual, not as WG chair)

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rodney W. Grimes
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 12:12 PM
> To: Wesley Eddy
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units
> 
> 
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> 
> Wes,
> 
> I feel we SHOULD not close the issue until the issue is actually fixed,
> which means after a draft is published that includes the repair, then
> the tracker can be updated to state:
>    Closed by change foo to draft-bar in version apple on date.
> 
> Closing issues before such correction is a certain method to issues
> going un resolved.
> 
> Regards,
> Rod
> 
> > I think the L4S issue tracker captures the consensus from the mailing
> > list and Singapore meeting on issue #18 regarding loss detection in time
> > units.
> >
> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/18
> >
> > David's last comment in the tracker looks like a good summary to me of
> > what's been agreed to:
> >
> >     Based on discussion at IETF-106 (Singapore), the direction to close
> >     this issue is to make the requirement that loss be detected in time
> >     units become a "SHOULD" requirement instead of a "MUST" requirement
> >     on the basis that this is a "good thing" (tm) for the Internet in
> >     general, but is not an absolute necessity for the L4S low latency
> >     service to work.
> 
> I agree this appears to be the WG consensus.
> 
> >
> > I'm assuming when the drafts are revised that this will be reflected,
> > and that people reviewing the revision will be looking for this, so it's
> > fine to go ahead and mark this resolved in the tracker (as it's no
> > longer a matter of disagreement; we're just waiting to see the agreement
> > reflected in the docs).
> >
> > Please shout if this doesn't sound right.
> >
> 
> Shouting, but only on precedural issues, not on consensus.