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

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 21 April 2020 22:06 UTC

To: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <c6a3195e-214a-7605-38c9-4e0d9a635abc@mti-systems.com> <202001291712.00THCMn3064775@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <MN2PR19MB4045A99A99491E541A20BDE083040@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <32da0479-a1b6-7045-69aa-d60298387e34@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:06:41 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR19MB4045A99A99491E541A20BDE083040@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sJ4b56cNP_di2-YcP0hlDjXNxgc>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units
Precedence: list

Since I see the agreed change in version -06 (and -07) of the l4s-id 
draft, I've marked as fixed and closed this issue out in the tracker.


On 1/29/2020 7:46 PM, Black, David wrote:
> +1 (as an individual, not as WG chair)
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rodney W. Grimes
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 12:12 PM
>> To: Wesley Eddy
>> Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection in time units
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>>
>> 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.

[tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detection i… Wesley Eddy
Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detecti… Rodney W. Grimes
Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detecti… Black, David
Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detecti… Wesley Eddy
Re: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #18 on loss detecti… Rodney W. Grimes