Re: [tsvwg] L4S vs SCE

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:04 PM Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> >       How do you expect an industry/commercial roll-out of L4S
> > technology to behave, if the L4S experiment should terminated without
> > adoption as a standard track RFC? Are they supposed to phase-out using
> > ECT(1) as well, or is it understood that deployed L4S instances continue
> using
> > L4S methods?
>
> [IJ] The premise would be that L4S is declared a failure. I doubt that
> anybody has a good enough crystal ball to predict what happens. First it is
> necessary to come to the conclusion that L4S is a failure and I would argue
> that we are not yet there and I don't currently see that coming. Before
> that possible event I don't see it meaningful to speculate.
>

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you strongly here. Given
the potential consequences of cleaning up after a failed experiment without
a plan worked out beforehand, this blithe approach is simply not acceptable.

In lots of cases, experiments are easy to terminate in an obvious way: for
example, in one typical case, a code point can simply be abandoned, or
(even better) a pollutable experimental code point returned to the
available pool after some time. If that were the case here, it would not be
difficult to enumerate a sequence of steps required to do so. It doesn't
appear that's the case, however, so all the more reason to make sure we
address this as part of the experiment setup.

A launch escape system of the necessary complexity should be a requirement
of any experimental deployment. In this case, that might circumscribe the
scope of the experiment itself.

Kyle