Re: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-sce

[G Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

The phrase: "is not an automatic barrier to WG adoption" - is true, but 
I would expect there to be a barrier to *immediate* adoption.

Thw WG has a chartered work item, following a BOF and adoption 
procedure. The Chairs work with the AD to manage the chartered work 
items, so I expect there will be no immediate change to the milestones 
(list of adopted drafts).

To clarify my own Chair position, I would not expect a WG to consider 
lightly starting a second deployment experiment in parallel using the 
same set of codepoints.

I think it is helpful to consider questions such as the following:

- Level of interest in performing the experiments and expected 
implementation/deployment.
- Understand how two parallel deployment experiments can co-exist.
- Understand how someone knows which experiment act on a particular flow.
- Document a pathway forward, should one (or both) experiments conclude.

Gorry


On 18/11/2019, 10:32, Black, David wrote:
> Yes, that guidance did come from the chairs:
>
>>>> (2) Coexistence of the L4S and SCE experiments is a concern that will
>>>> need to be addressed by the WG if the SCE draft is adopted, and hence is in
>>>> scope for discussion of this adoption request ..  In particular, absence of a
>>>> coexistence plan (e.g., to deal with the different uses of the ECT(1)
>>>> codepoint by L4S and SCE) is not an automatic barrier to WG adoption of the
>>>> SCE draft.
> and Roni's interpretation is close to the chairs' intent:
>
>> [Roni] My reading of the text was that while LS4 was adopted by the WG the
>> usage of ECT(1) by LS4 should not be the reason for not adopting SCE. The
>> decision should be on the merit of the SCE. The usage of ECT(1) is a separate
>> issue
> A small clarification is to insert one word: "... should not be the *procedural* reason ..."
>
> In other words, the proposed use of ECT(1) by L4S does not bar the WG from considering other possible uses of ECT(1) - in particular, WG discussion of possible adoption of the SCE draft will not be prohibited by the chairs for that reason.  This is a procedural statement only, not a technical statement - in particular, a technical view that there is no reasonable way for L4S and SCE to coexist as simultaneous/concurrent experiments on the public Internet is a possible technical rationale for opposing WG adoption of the SCE draft as part of that WG discussion.
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roni Even (A)<[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 7:28 PM
>> To: Bob Briscoe; [e-mail]
>> Cc: Rodney W. Grimes; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [tsvwg] Requesting TSVWG adoption of SCE draft-morton-tsvwg-
>> sce
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>>> tsvwg Chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/11/2019 21:50, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>>>> The TSVWG chairs have provided the following guidelines for this adoption
>>> request:
>>> [snip]
>>>> (2) Coexistence of the L4S and SCE experiments is a concern that will
>>>> need to be addressed by the WG if the SCE draft is adopted, and hence is in
>>> scope for discussion of this adoption request ..  In particular, absence of a
>>> coexistence plan (e.g., to deal with the different uses of the ECT(1)
>>> codepoint by L4S and SCE) is not an automatic barrier to WG adoption of the
>>> SCE draft.
>>> Could the chairs give clarity on whether Rod's statement above came from
>>> the them please? And if it did, what the chairs thinking was in saying that. It
>>> seems rather an odd thing for chairs of an IETF WG to say about a codepoint
>>> in the IP header, when the prime role of the IETF is interoperability and
>>> coexistence.
>> [Roni] My reading of the text was that while LS4 was adopted by the WG the
>> usage of ECT(1) by LS4 should not be the reason for not adopting SCE. The
>> decision should be on the merit of the SCE. The usage of ECT(1) is a separate
>> issue
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> __________________________________________________________
>>> ______
>>> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/