Re: [tsvwg] closed L4S issue #20 on use of ECT(1)

[Dave Taht <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:34 AM Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 6/4/2020 2:20 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> > I did not see consensus. What I saw was the principal inventor of ecn
> > (kk), the ns3 maintainer, myself and a few others,
> > calling for more testing. Others on the SCE front, voted for option 2.
> >
> > Then there was a bunch of folk that had never participated on this
> > list before, voting.
>
> We don't vote, and there never was a vote.  Many people with long
> histories of participation in this working group and others expressed
> their positions.  Some were sent offlist, which you would not have
> seen.  All 3 co-chairs and the ADs collaborated on evaluating the total
> set of inputs and deciding how to proceed. This was not done by counting
> a vote, so there should be no concern about that.

Well, I would have weighted the inputs, perhaps differently.

IMHO There really needs to be a ton more running code before getting
to rough consensus on this point. Seeing that
last batch of bugs (on vpns and on loss in the prague ll queue) show
up on the evening of the consensus call
should have been an eye opener for anyone here that still believes in
doing quality engineering.

I have no idea how much has been published based on faulty code at this point.

>
>
>
>
>


-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman

[e-mail] <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: [phone]