Re: [tsvwg] plan for L4S issue #29

["Gorry (erg)" <[e-mail]>]

Since you asked...

> On 28 Sep 2020, at 19:10, Jonathan Morton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 28 Sep, 2020, at 12:31 pm, De Schepper, Koen (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> We had a consensus call in April,
>>>> 
>>>>    [SM] Did we? As far as I remember the decision back then was always a "vote" of confidence for L4S over SCE, to make team L4S continue with the experient, but it did not (even try to) answer the question whether L4S is ready for deployment.
>>> 
>>> It was a consensus call over whether ECT(1) should have input or output semantics, which is a somewhat different (though related) question than "L4S vs SCE".  Regardless of any subsequent spin, it ended with no consensus established for any single option presented.
>> 
>> [K] There was a big consensus to proceed with the L4S semantic.
> 
> This is a straightforward factual question which, it is clear, I remember very differently from Koen and Bob.  I will quote David Black in reply to Paul Vixie, on 26th May:
> 
>> Going back to the original expression of concerns, and writing as a WG chair:
>> 
>>> ... i hope the chairs can explain why choice 3, more testing, was not the rough consensus they think they witnessed,
>>> and also, how the time value of a choice of 1 or 2 "now" is higher than the merit value of getting to an evidence-based consensus "later".
>> 
>> In reverse order, the goal is to get to an evidence-based consensus "later", e.g., as indicated by the following text from the announcement email:
>> 
>>    •    A successful WGLC on the drafts will require TSVWG rough consensus that the L4S experiment is safe to perform on the Internet.
>> 
>> I am confident that TSVWG does not currently have rough consensus that the L4S experiment is safe to perform on the Internet.  RFC 7282 is relevant background reading on rough consensus.
>> 
>> The only way that I could see choice 3 (more testing) being viewed as the outcome of the consensus call would be to assume that almost everyone who expressed support of choice 1 (ECT(1) as input) would also support choice 3.  Not only was that not the structure of the choices, but I am also confident that such an assumption would be incorrect.  Please keep in mind that choice 3 was not "more testing" in general - choice 3 specifically asked for specific tests:
>> 
>>    3.      There is a specific test or tests I need to see before making a decision about ECT(1). Please be specific about the tests in your response.
>> 
>> The time value in choosing a direction now is that the WG has spent most of the past year not getting much done in this area to the consternation (and more) of many of the people involved on all sides.  From a WG management perspective, it would be irresponsible of the WG chairs to allow this situation to continue for another year.
>> 
>> Thanks, --David (as a TSVWG chair)
> 
> In short, the decision to proceed with L4S for the time being was an executive one by the Chairs in the interest of unsticking the WG as a whole, and not a consensus position *of* the WG as a whole.  I would appreciate confirmation from the Chairs that I have characterised that correctly, but it seems to be supported by the above quotation.
> 
That was all that was required at the time. The decision was to focus on the working group work items and we confirmed that.

> At any rate, the prerequisite for closing blocking issues *must* be that the issues have actually been resolved, not merely that they are being moved to a forum where they have not received as much scrutiny.

At some point the working group needs to publish the spec. - This final stage is taking longer than I would hope, and
I do hope that will be seeing a WGLC soon.

Gorry 

> - Jonathan Morton