Re: [tsvwg] Another tunnel/VPN scenario (was RE: Reasons for WGLC/RFC asap)

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 16:40 +0000, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> Just on that last point, perhaps we should be clearer by what 
> "experiment" means.
> 
> On 03/12/2020 15:52, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> > Frankly, the sooner the WG understands and accepts that basic fact,
> > the sooner we can move to a viable solution - one which does not
> > redefine CE from the semantics established by RFC-3168 and RFC-
> > 8511, and hence does not place burdens on networks which have no
> > interest in the L4S experiment.
> 
> I think we need to be clear that I understand the proposal is to an 
> Internet-wide experimental deployment.

Have single network experiments been attempted? Have cooperating
peering network experiments been attempted? Why is an *Internet-wide*
experiment the appropriate next step, especially when potential
detrimental impacts to traffic flows of non-participating networks &
hosts have been identified?

> If succesful, I'd expect we'll discover things in the deployment
> that 
> will make us consider new things, before this is approved as a PS.
> The 
> WG might later decide to obsolete RFC-3168, or L4S, or neither, or
> both. 
> That will be to decide in future. In persepective, about 15 years
> passed 
> before the previous EXP use of ECT(1) was made made historic,
> enabling this.
> 
> Gorry

Is there a planned deadline to evaluate the results of the experiment,
and either advance to PS or revert the allocation of ECT(1)?


Regards,

// Steve