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

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 63AE63A0B73 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 d2GScMa8XV-H for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (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 8E1A03A0B6E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id c63so438133qke.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=9Lyzd3x8xwzvvFvqFOIhcRc6mkYAZ+R3T1P/9QGaB+U=; b=aiJhZF6q0xTGDdGYoshRGWjW4Z6hG9FsWlEmjbBDKBBb7DjFuIC804CAX9nNzBA1Aw O9GnnJvO063cpn2dZdm8aIkIYL4VPWP+BTLFY47sV2NkRv43RYTgmB8HuUaF6AFq127O ZMMQxjlcjiaKl/dzgQqQYJ94N5Ck3O93PXOilg85ngub4xkUCN73APWe6G4hogfs5/Sq s0CbHfSfsXY/FxBZuFXw0ZbNzbTAH0XXVr4ezN+TznnXaBv+daMtZjDi+cwpeEcTFZrM Riwy8+GPZRBjPSl9ivTgixJIsDUyeyXpr95vrl5Wv3bQhrdpEnltD2jkHvmsByBB7qTQ ve8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=9Lyzd3x8xwzvvFvqFOIhcRc6mkYAZ+R3T1P/9QGaB+U=; b=CjBAZ7OaDUR4f29M5fnG2mhuhKn1FuZXfAxbnA14kPnXR2FqUqE88bIhB4eYxRGEIE ITt23DqtNmHBje+jFp8P0xID2U59Gl26hdeLrursloKTbgrXXTiHF6TobdNb6S/H3KnU QrDaYkbVtznVFSSu0xYDbfQSjm+AqzEPLqjJbOe9HoIbDR8XAgFDf+Skrab9Xia3kQhR rHsDK5Zd1DVzTNmtMOCt0vTcy/rr0GLAEvJS7gxNfznmDdvSL+krSrlGy6SJsQOhJQLv E9mzFs6mOsGyPm1uvF71QXCS5Kguxala/iEuttUiL+ur+doZrHD+KsvxNj6QzvPBU0H7 ES0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZPFnDCp5oNWp6KtvsMjbKZaGizo46rF/W8af46at6J3QyYJFWL zsQdcrpAi3KHyPKhvJ57VE6MD2VG4tHAPg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLfUQVkCzV7OWRkh4GPXMti1sBBvI7ET3ju8zkbHjay1ncZ25Qzqrmq7jT+wTNPNQ+HjeqerQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:5c46:: with SMTP id q67mr23395802qkb.210.1587506807385; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (user-12l31c7.cable.mindspring.com. [69.81.133.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o27sm2554093qko.71.2020.04.21.15.06.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
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
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: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:06:51 -0000

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.