Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

Wes,

I feel we SHOULD not close the issue until the issue is actually fixed,
which means after a draft is published that includes the repair, then
the tracker can be updated to state:
   Closed by change foo to draft-bar in version apple on date.

Closing issues before such correction is a certain method to issues
going un resolved.

Regards,
Rod

> I think the L4S issue tracker captures the consensus from the mailing 
> list and Singapore meeting on issue #18 regarding loss detection in time 
> units.
> 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/18
> 
> David's last comment in the tracker looks like a good summary to me of 
> what's been agreed to:
> 
>     Based on discussion at IETF-106 (Singapore), the direction to close
>     this issue is to make the requirement that loss be detected in time
>     units become a "SHOULD" requirement instead of a "MUST" requirement
>     on the basis that this is a "good thing" (tm) for the Internet in
>     general, but is not an absolute necessity for the L4S low latency
>     service to work.

I agree this appears to be the WG consensus.

> 
> I'm assuming when the drafts are revised that this will be reflected, 
> and that people reviewing the revision will be looking for this, so it's 
> fine to go ahead and mark this resolved in the tracker (as it's no 
> longer a matter of disagreement; we're just waiting to see the agreement 
> reflected in the docs).
> 
> Please shout if this doesn't sound right.
> 

Shouting, but only on precedural issues, not on consensus.