Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

Replying to your question to the chairs:

On 9/30/2020 4:00 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> 	[SM] I believe that we are conflating two "experiments" here:
>
> 1) the absolutely required experiments to what degree L4S will realize its claimed charcteristics (or its promises) under a number of conditions that are relevant/prevalent in the real world.
>
> 2) how to deploy L4S in the real world.
>
> If we look carefully at these two experiments it becomes obvious, that an RFC in the experimental track seems necessary for 2), but 1) can and should proceed long before 2) is being addressed. To be blunt, if experiment 1) is not clearly demonstrating improvements over the state of the art, then 2) becomes moot.
>
> @CHAIRS: Could you please let me know, if you agree?


We've heard very strongly from the working group that enabling 
low-latency is very important to a wide number of stakeholders right 
now.  Several teams have been experimenting with this, and it's been 
reported that the industry is actively working on L4S implementations.

We also have clearly heard a number of people that are so far 
unconvinced of the utility or capabilities in their analysis.  I think 
this shows that the operational considerations work that Greg has 
started editing is important.  It can help people experimenting with 
methodology for collecting data and having appropriate risk awareness 
and management plans.

So, from my viewpoint as a chair, I don't think the working group seems 
to want to block right now on convincing every single person to love 
L4S, but rather to make sure that it's setup to be sufficiently safe for 
the wider experimentation plans that we've heard of in prior meetings.