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

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Wed, 29 January 2020 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C641E120897 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zAmP8O2Tqd_k for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78FC8120890 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 00THCNLq064776; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 00THCMn3064775; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202001291712.00THCMn3064775@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <c6a3195e-214a-7605-38c9-4e0d9a635abc@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 09:12:22 -0800 (PST)
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/gmdrToHdqgpdI3PXuWtTx786B5w>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:12:26 -0000

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.