Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 17 June 2020 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
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 1D8D53A09FF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 1IePup3a9Vvs for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D8693A0A0A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id r22so1103122qke.13 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=t7RoK2qhyopyEB/5BLoXEq3WzVHhxH9jvj18jLfVRIc=; b=wceIoWK6qO6KPk35yAMyhvwFAz6AeDzmHjlQq7ckI912VQz3eRusHLgXlnFCTqI/I+ xkSWRs3tw0ROGbMLrKSPbPO4GwjmDQSlNMOg+Bz+QleRXpzsCoASUTu3w4cYnOvUI6Qd i1wgLwMPA/O9Kj6yY/KLfmjdh8Tw1f1MwhGvq7oVY1/rua9fnPFNjEZKVxIT8nzVmEax IbFqt9kJB3GZSV1lm9dY38XD1NkSN34QFQRInTzgyyVy1psVPeKm3xEPI0PF/ac6EoDR atOETuvYSkSxBmY/z1zOgQfGL+eo5K1+lA0YGbswWvFBJHs0RkLDqyzGb8xIiXnN96Ks +H+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=t7RoK2qhyopyEB/5BLoXEq3WzVHhxH9jvj18jLfVRIc=; b=cD9jgJ/1k0/YtK/2odiyNJlpgc0W8v9jFygzelXvCoHaF5jXs/j1qDfLLaZei3SlPh wyJTtxSarnuANk/Zz+l1vB75n1v2RjbvdMVkZseI9EuZhAbtPlYwtg7iXgGrWIzE5tAV GSM2Z6xZzyFBsdga/ZttkCa5sNtn1+y+ELRsVQzHxSrvdnjWBODi8StfgwncDskJVGpW MdnsyvvDpp/Eew/w+0T8/UOmLSTTVHfIragk6tiYSMEXAu6eWfVA/zQVQa0Y9q4eUBWH 6tCM1zqzSbqT603tnq3cUT21gB4U4lbKKIEHoOy6iGNq9fPXtaI+QHbVbqhGhEbyxB97 54ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZK0wNprCu0uY7aZM1YY879YJk0XcRDGbBVvDPLiE5VheYvbZ8 Q6teXPoAx90mGvMbJ8MbTWn2//cINmNcWQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0SsIhM2W4ufkZlr3NiJxMoE79n3jckL0lVLzuxDJoCD4i/+LwmMOURflQO6J3CJl5a2hlmQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:985:: with SMTP id 127mr27055467qkj.297.1592411038095; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k22sm374057qke.33.2020.06.17.09.23.57 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jun 2020 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <202006171419.05HEJClG085550@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <d5c08e8f-134b-6ca2-c490-27b574688d16@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:23:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <202006171419.05HEJClG085550@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/mriIqPnyX_vZ9b7jY2Xew4wj0MQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] path forward on L4S issue #16
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, 17 Jun 2020 16:24:02 -0000

On 6/17/2020 10:19 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> IMHO the fact that L4S is years into the process and only done
> positive test results presentations leads one to believe it
> is simply being pushed through the process with little to no
> care about the actual internet community.

I don't suspect that it will soothe you, but will just say that I 
volunteer as a co-chair and shepherd this particular work out of care 
for the "actual internet community" you mention.  The desire to 
experimentally roll-out low-latency services is aimed at serving that 
community.

It has not been recklessly "pushed through the process" as you are 
concerned with.  There are itemized issues to be resolved in order to 
have confidence that this can be safely deployed (and if more emerge, 
they can be dispositioned and added if needed).  This particular thread 
is about agreeing on a path forward on the one labelled "issue #16" in 
the tracker.  Suggestions and discussion about that are good and 
welcome; repeatedly accusing others of bad intentions is not.