Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim

[Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]>]

> On 25 Mar, 2020, at 10:48 am, Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Not accepting your premises is not the same as not understanding them.

I think this is a crucial point that bears emphasis, given how some recent discussions have proceeded.

There are some points on which the L4S and SCE teams agree, and some points on which we disagree.  Many of these opinions are strongly held by each side, so we should not expect to convince each other of their truth - if that in fact happens, it's a pleasant bonus.

The people to be convinced are the Working Group at large.  Both teams will of course champion their own project.

What we need to do is ensure that the arguments being made are correctly *understood*, even if disagreement exists.  Correctly identifying the difference between disagreement with the intended argument, versus failing to convey the argument accurately, will definitely help with that.  But I think some of us are better at it than others.

For my own part, I will continue to seek clarification when it is obvious that an argument I tried to respond to was not the one intended.  On these occasions, I'll include a rephrased summary of the argument as I understood it, so that the point of misunderstanding can efficiently be resolved.  When I'm sure I understand the argument, I can then respond with the extent to which I agree or disagree with it, together with reasons why.  And, crucially, people reading that discussion will also understand the correct argument and put my response in the correct context.

I hope that everyone else in this debate will take a similar approach.  It will certainly make things more civilised.

 - Jonathan Morton