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

Jonathan Morton <> Wed, 25 March 2020 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FEE3A0CEA for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SKx_3I2R4Cvr for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5817E3A0D0A for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n20so1321893lfl.10 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQvkOoXl2scBki4lUPXurRXJcAbGyQFiHH9Vq9j+A04=; b=smpHeiP49PXuKeaG8OGCXfUAd0628khG68jSSq5/EXkrfsgPFKBPbNmt9KJNQQCTW1 u+Qm7aXSTJmz1dPlbho7CtAqXIte5kp0bHQG3AK2LSXPsIPdxxiRETfnOJiRdWUcxgsf 7gG8gz1j0VAiSgOwC5D9xLR0/2iW7jdg4yCps/5zcoOLrMsMp411Rfay4k3r7iKjNuVz Ws1bCkrpyal+TlO9QQh0Gai0DnVfCcBS0jreiOBUi2do2G5vqv0C8HaxCT3XGZkfsjD+ KxfbzZYmTr9S0Fgot7wUPMH6/9evvSFN1vUjRTH8IXZlXTjBhzycGH7A3PIcRdRTVWeO FNyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NQvkOoXl2scBki4lUPXurRXJcAbGyQFiHH9Vq9j+A04=; b=bww3xpsxEtfCZSE1yggc1L3NJPLLH911k6SLDIFkp3eRWkXtlMETZos9SPmC8zF+mu JQlmPKjl5EeV3m/ldFGVq87ZfWUU2vdjrYSigrVuWl6Qc+i5WsZ+TuMobt/8BML7fhQH tTlBOeQBIHdEMBqO/xAYaEzvpJXr1BozyRVebsuVljs56jxCqYd61enh4r/F6Slg1i+5 Ue05+3hndA5tAFPT+pSg22agNsbbRMWSX7vxdKSzKio3PTQ9KkHw//uYzFdIyXWcRcpn DypHqgXO0hHvKf6br6ru/o5oIctDdi1zGiv7+8aB3CyxdyIaBNbfQ3jacf20sSPmyVzC pbVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2z8gpz3/WfMXFrEWlorZLCrPTwmYr1/hH7WATMpeh9UDUyYv+r C3mGxWX5JG/+PcVmo1Up9OV+i6gg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsTg5OWugN3A2oaKTl1rpGN0EPp/PSp6yin3vNyz/TzqxICB1IYwLBcoJYhFR1pWZ6hIOsbJg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4201:: with SMTP id y1mr1966259lfh.92.1585133047023; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id d19sm3859663lji.95.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jonathan Morton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:44:04 +0200
Cc: Bob Briscoe <>, tsvwg IETF list <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Sebastian Moeller <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:13 -0000

> On 25 Mar, 2020, at 10:48 am, Sebastian Moeller <> 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