Re: [tsvwg] L4S drafts: Next Steps

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

Just replying to clarify the goal on splitting of the requirements:

On 12/8/2020 6:00 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Now I've explained, I hope the chairs will all agree that "rework the 
> Prague Requirements into two entities" (normative requirements and 
> design and implementation guidelines) is already done and dusted.
>
As I'm seeing it at the moment, the problem is that there seems to be 
disagreement about whether it's possible to create transport algorithms 
or ensembles that meet the requirements.  Some people are fine with 
this, while others are uncomfortable that there isn't a clear "existence 
proof" yet that this can be done.

I believe everyone would agree that there are viable research projects 
(and some results have been shared in the WG) to address the 
requirements in various ways, and that those are of strong interest to 
the IETF and ICCRG now and in the future.

I think it's fine if we can have agreement that additional transport 
work to further this research is part of the experimental scope for L4S, 
but we should be hearing people saying they're comfortable to be 
contributing to that and make transports that will coherently meet all 
of the MUSTs.  Or, this is an opportunity for them to say if some of the 
requirements should be altered/relaxed in the split.