Re: [tsvwg] Follow-up to your DSCP and ECN codepoint comments at tsvwg interim

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 3/9/2020 4:10 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> QUESTION @Chairs: What are the conditions and aims for the TSVW WG in deciding to grant an RFC like L4S experimental status? I would love to get a clarification please.


There are 3 chairs, and I only speak for 1, but the bottom-line is 
simply "WG rough consensus" (decently described in RFC 7282).

Beyond that, I don't think we are adding or removing any explicit 
criteria.  The RFCs on congestion control evaluation cover things that 
have traditionally been of interest/concern to the community in 
developing consensus that technologies were safe enough for experimental 
deployment on the Internet.  In the case of the technologies that are 
proposing to use ECT(1) for experiments today, I don't think this is any 
different.

As a chair, when sending to the IESG for recommended publication, I also 
want to see that:

(1) There is wide interest in deploying the technology.

(2) The concerns with it are understood well enough to be considered by 
people deploying it, and they are aware of what they might want to 
measure or what means are possible to mitigate problems.

Sometimes the "experiments" don't clearly succeed (global deployment) 
nor fail (nil deployment), but wind up very useful in some cases, and 
not of interest in others.  In the case of ECT(1) (considered by itself 
without any DSCP-scoping), there probably should be some bit of a plan 
or analysis around what happens if the technology persists in pockets 
where it's useful, but doesn't have 100% deployment over the Internet.  
We will need to consider the status of the ECT(1) codepoint, and how it 
can be used in the future whether these experimental specs are 
successful (widely deployed), partially successful (deployed in 
pockets), or failed (not deployed, or found defective and eventually 
un-deployed).