Subject: [tsvwg] Fwd: start of WGLC on L4S drafts

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:01:10 +0000

David, chairs,

I was asked in the tsvwg meeting on Monday to list any responses to the 
WGLC that have not been addressed yet.

There are two:

1) The the top section of Pete Heist's email
     - So far I have responded to Pete's three in-depth reviews of the 
three L4S drafts and identified where changes have been made so far in 
the drafts in response to each point, and if not why not.
     - Next I (and/or hopefully others) have said that I/we intend to 
work through the more general points in the top section that do not 
refer to a specific part of any draft. Although many will be similar to 
the points about the drafts.

2) Jonathan Morton's email 26-Aug (quoted below), linking to a 10-page 
document "Objections to L4S WGLC" listing Rod Grimes and Pete Heist as 
co-authors. (Also summarized by the presentation that David Black read 
out for Jonathan during the tsvwg session in IETF-111)
     * I'll handle this in parallel to the WGLC process (prioritizing 
the WGLC), because there was nothing in these materials that referred to 
the three L4S drafts in WGLC, except the covering note saying that 
reading the drafts had given a feeling of listening to a mistuned piano.
     * The linked document contains a summary of each of the main points 
that have already been raised plus (I think) one new one. I (and/or 
hopefully others) intend to work through it, making sure all the points 
have either already been discussed and addressed or continuing the 
discussion where it is still ongoing, or responding to new point(s) on 
the ML.
     * However, we would be entitled to just ignore this document 
completely. It is well outside the IETF's code of conduct, frequently 
descending into bitterness, disrespectfulness and attacks on people's 
competence.
         - It is primarily an objection to the WGLC itself (hence its 
title), and does not engage in the process of reviewing the drafts for a 
WGLC.
         - It often turns into a political tract, mostly apparently 
addressed to an audience not working on the drafts; over the heads of 
those working in the IETF.
         - It never tries to understand or find an underlying reason for 
a difference of opinion, instead descending into accusations of 
untruths, contradictions, and disingenuous motivations.
     * Where I can, I might even try to explain why some of the 
differences of opinion exist.
     * But if this disrespectful approach does not stop, I reserve the 
right to disengage.

Regards

Bob

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [tsvwg] start of WGLC on L4S drafts
Date: 	Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:20:00 +0300
From: 	Jonathan Morton <[email-masked]>
To: 	Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>

> On 29 Jul, 2021, at 7:18 pm, Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> This message is starting a combined working group last call on 3 of 
> the L4S drafts:
>
> - Architecture: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch/
>
> - DualQ: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled/
>
> - ECN ID: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id/
>
> The WGLC will last through 4 weeks from today, and then we'll see what 
> to do next. Please submit any comments you have on these to the TSVWG 
> list in that timeframe.

I have read through these drafts more times than I really wanted to, and 
frankly can't shake the feeling of listening to a mistuned piano whilst 
doing so. I hereby object to the advancement of these drafts to the next 
stage of publication, as they are clearly in no state to do so.

My detailed comments, which among other things provide a technical 
justification for the bullet points read out by David Black during the 
recent meeting, are available here:

https://sce.dnsmgr.net/downloads/
L4S-WGLC2-objection-details.pdf

- Jonathan Morton

---

From: Jonathan Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 02:54:03 +0200

> On 10 Nov, 2021, at 8:01 pm, Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 2) Jonathan Morton's email 26-Aug (quoted below), linking to a 10-page document "Objections to L4S WGLC" listing Rod Grimes and Pete Heist as co-authors. (Also summarized by the presentation that David Black read out for Jonathan during the tsvwg session in IETF-111)
>     * I'll handle this in parallel to the WGLC process (prioritizing the WGLC), because there was nothing in these materials that referred to the three L4S drafts in WGLC, except the covering note saying that reading the drafts had given a feeling of listening to a mistuned piano.
>     * The linked document contains a summary of each of the main points that have already been raised plus (I think) one new one. I (and/or hopefully others) intend to work through it, making sure all the points have either already been discussed and addressed or continuing the discussion where it is still ongoing, or responding to new point(s) on the ML.

To clarify: the document is an objection to L4S as a whole.  The intended audience is not so much the draft authors, but the WG at large - particularly the WG Chairs, Area Director, and the IESG.

I believe that L4S has exhausted any claims of technical merit, cannot efficiently be revised into an acceptable state, and should step aside to free up resources for alternative approaches in this problem space.  That is the ultimate point I attempted to convey, together with detailed reasoning.  I do not expect you, as a primary author of L4S, to agree with my conclusions, but I hope you will at least understand my point of view.

>     * However, we would be entitled to just ignore this document completely. It is well outside the IETF's code of conduct, frequently descending into bitterness, disrespectfulness and attacks on people's competence.

Not so much competence as intent.  Some phrases refer fairly directly to clauses in the Code of Conduct, which the AD helpfully summarised during the session.  A careful and self-critical reading of RFC-7154 does seem to be in order for all concerned.

I am aware that much of what I had to say could be taken as combative by some readers.  But I will note that I have not received any objections over my document's content from the Chairs or AD.  If any such objections are forthcoming, I will hear them and bear them in mind for the future, though I would prefer to hear them sooner rather than later.  Nevertheless, I wrote the document specifically in furtherance of this clause of RFC-7154:

   3. IETF participants devise solutions for the global Internet that
      meet the needs of diverse technical and operational environments.

      The mission of the IETF is to produce high-quality, relevant
      technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
      design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
      Internet work better.  The IETF puts its emphasis on technical
      competence, rough consensus, and individual participation, and it
      needs to be open to competent input from any source.  We
      understand that "scaling is the ultimate problem" and that many
      ideas that are quite workable on a small scale fail this crucial
      test.

      IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to find the
      best solution for the whole Internet, not just the best solution
      for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user.  While we
      all have ideas that may stand improvement from time to time, no
      one shall ever knowingly contribute advice or text that would make
      a standard technically inferior.

With this in mind, please do try to incorporate any lessons from my work that you can.

 - Jonathan Morton