Subject: [tsvwg] summary of L4S last call results

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:48:26 -0400

(with co-chair and document shepherd hat on)

Many thanks for all of the feedback we received during the WGLC for the 
L4S drafts.  There were a lot of people that responded, and a spectrum 
of different types of responses.

I've sorted the responses into 4 broad classes:

1. There were many expressing support and advocating moving forward, 
without further comments.  There is obvious industry support, 
implementation, and interest or plans to further experiment with L4S.

2. There were a fair number also with support but including comments to 
be addressed by the editors.

3. A small number advocated for a different path, namely publishing on 
Standards Track (rather than Experimental) and obsoleting 3168 now.  The 
chairs don't believe that there is WG rough consensus for this path, but 
need to make sure that the WG has adequately considered it.  Assuming 
that Standards Track will not be pursued right now, the chairs will need 
to make sure that the concerns motivating this proposal are still 
considered by the WG.

4. Several responses are strongly against proceeding, and included 
descriptions of concerns that the chairs will also need to make sure the 
WG has considered.  The chairs have been looking at these concerns 
(along with those in item 3 above) and are making plans to bring the 
items needing more WG consideration forward.

Discussion has been already happening with the editors on some 
resolutions regarding class 2 above.  The chairs are working on 
additional proposals for how to handle concerns raised in the 3rd and 
4th classes which will be coming to the list soon.

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:17:13 +0100

Wes,

On 03/09/2021 19:48, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> Many thanks for all of the feedback we received during the WGLC for 
> the L4S drafts.  There were a lot of people that responded, and a 
> spectrum of different types of responses.
>
> 2. There were a fair number also with support but including comments 
> to be addressed by the editors.
>
> Standards Track (rather than Experimental) and obsoleting 3168 now.  
> The chairs don't believe that there is WG rough consensus for this 
> path, but need to make sure that the WG has adequately considered it.  
> Assuming that Standards Track will not be pursued right now, the 
> chairs will need to make sure that the concerns motivating this 
> proposal are still considered by the WG.
>
> descriptions of concerns that the chairs will also need to make sure 
> the WG has considered.  The chairs have been looking at these concerns 

I'll continue working on the concerns under #4, and I assume 
implementers and others will do similarly.

Until we get more clarity from the chairs, I won't do anything about #3 
(stds track) in the drafts, but I will open discussion on the list.

And we'll crack on with addressing all the comments about the drafts 
under #2.

Cheers

Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/