From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5668F3CB37 for ; Thu, 23 May 2024 02:16:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1716444978; x=1717049778; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=HOEoZ0V6mEDLdLb+6wmLV5s9NdnUpYadUpjLvAzcMWE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=cPtSr46FEkx28sat1i7mnvsQXzxXUAy6WGYLU1o2Ys31tTqdf7bYDfnhhmSIiVzK ixucy2skNG0+ZNZgONSdzwQBtCsWGX3qUKdgcjpUn9M57ghlEsDDPCUDnVgvdDikK Zj0RtctRXU9Ew2MXlJxymO6AHqDHYHNZzaZukvT5nnHdyO5AIbNptsAnfx2McaxQz Nj0KBvqwXojEW9Yuq5BjQfGxcOrHjMkJSlw2i1N8rYOhxy0aEoBd/hXUnGHbqfEzd oN3OLOnpvIx8K5mUZAMaTUTU/Y1sE3NEP9oBiCuLv0V+mGYBk9TO4Na348cS4LOJv xxpNxI+fTQfKaJYl1w== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.114.122]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mw9UK-1sQJgE2IAW-00s8NB; Thu, 23 May 2024 08:16:18 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 08:16:13 +0200 From: Sebastian Moeller To: "Livingood, Jason" , bloat User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <37D56C43-6E54-485D-B0B8-955FA9826310@comcast.com> References: <37D56C43-6E54-485D-B0B8-955FA9826310@comcast.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----WO2D9WBX7Y5YY7RA5RJVNB39MWD63W Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:AAX7Np58s/8DmuArjrqd/KkGyuFHWlDRwTuA8w5+f+x5GidI1bd cRO3UL9bBuEVfZ8LkUAbnWbMmbuAYldoRPKW+xUHMcis1H1tlJnFXWS9s3qpkJk3bkWQTAM oQc2Z6DFvs/q7hD4BQa3fGCguH4GN5LSpB4lC0eTVj3NQfiYxeTpiuDcKFp5zrEtjcEaYFn QrJm1p6qMPoTFJxgfN8Ww== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:tGTiMpY3j/0=;jHK1u3UFG6BMa+R0KZaKFCa649a 5n+R2SrWT+pDggMsS4Ir0HkZ1jC3phxB+hbT/nDQ2ThSwTAoCtqrSkIm7d2XXbsQZinQUbBEQ MRILt0pGigm8gx3ySJhKjuKkVwfZMdn3W0wVyHvdCRF9hU7/fZR0TBD6k4X8JIoRZsbkPdJM6 p/O9N8gavjJIq8Qr9O0szf+spQ5BYdjs68Nw3CMGdZhdKJVp6Xmr2S14E7ksqR+Ym9B19Ygmf Pw7ph4BuCyJhQbkGYYqedEA+i3E8KOQCJWSYG2kfKmmATSuQxgg1DXnvCbJK18FzsbbhDvSdL Ae8ykZ6+gmRgHgHpTJ77LYDCGbnNIQ+/Q0QF2ts8k1pfVjQSXicN/m2Ziac2zbYPTaXCwjb+f auRnJ9RtBgYS/Exv9KXEQk5XYYUt0DN/lT0NIlAyETKuI3ZooyGcs8D2Mei5l17d+6OIA9nXv uJy9mH3fQ2kVrmPwJMahdTWlPKMwpdDkQ2C478WWTvv5s0B1NxH47OZjxkmxG+sDoerLaZejc 9rsYYLrnAVZR8a/g3zQ7tlPehB5ykMKgFFSLJ7GGEAozjmzJ7lDc2zV0lDQKthmO8hMcRoDVv Z5qOezYDkvkX6CifN2o3Z2s43pXZEL3x7ZTmqot4AZYElRVrvVpKXOnROgcgtjvxEn7BHR5N0 RaPK9MN2sMkmV0HG08YuhQ9500ipmYmd8O26DgUo+8MOg0iYbmkwGfOja18hSav2y0Cf+/LqR frTLeHFRIDZvolyfAg/7V2Vc2dK+BXyoVPBkapLfppDOhMT7+SvA2s40nln8jLtdYea8Vutxt LHyrGg2zL4JAJKIgqiGnWplsuBdNuF6eidxqHMrD0sLXk= Subject: Re: [Bloat] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! " X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 06:16:24 -0000 ------WO2D9WBX7Y5YY7RA5RJVNB39MWD63W Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jason, It is not just l4s, nqb and udp options are similarly flawed process-wise= =2E=2E=2E so this is not about me being in the rough=2E It is rather determination of consensus, however rough, seems under more o= r less sole power of the chairs (like in a court, but without a jury) and c= hairs are not bound to act as fair and impartial arbiters=2E=2E=2E and unli= ke in court there is no supposedly rigid set of rules by which to assess a = chairs decision, let alone reliable methods to appeal a decision=2E Sure th= e IETF lets jockels like me participate in the process, but no, we do not h= ave any meaningful say=2E Because in the end rough consensus is what the ch= airs declare it to be=2E=2E=2E And this is where in private strategy discus= sions with chairs become problematic=2E Now, I understand why/how one ends up with a system like this, but thay do= es not make that a great or desirable system IMHO=2E On 23 May 2024 02:06:26 CEST, "Livingood, Jason" wrote: >On 5/22/24, 09:11, "Sebastian Moeller" > wrote: >>[SM] The solution is IMHO not to try to enforce rfc7282=20 > >[JL] ISTM that the things in 7282 are well reflected in how TSVWG operate= s=2E I know from experience it can be hard when rough consensus doesn't go = your way - it happens=2E And at the end of the day there are always competi= ng technical solutions - and if L4S indeed does not scale up well and demon= strate sufficient benefit (or demonstrate downside) then something else wil= l win the day=2E=20 > > --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E ------WO2D9WBX7Y5YY7RA5RJVNB39MWD63W Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jason,

It is not just = l4s, nqb and udp options are similarly flawed process-wise=2E=2E=2E so this= is not about me being in the rough=2E
It is rather determination of con= sensus, however rough, seems under more or less sole power of the chairs (l= ike in a court, but without a jury) and chairs are not bound to act as fair= and impartial arbiters=2E=2E=2E and unlike in court there is no supposedly= rigid set of rules by which to assess a chairs decision, let alone reliabl= e methods to appeal a decision=2E Sure the IETF lets jockels like me partic= ipate in the process, but no, we do not have any meaningful say=2E Because = in the end rough consensus is what the chairs declare it to be=2E=2E=2E And= this is where in private strategy discussions with chairs become problemat= ic=2E

Now, I understand why/how one ends up with a system like this,= but thay does not make that a great or desirable system IMHO=2E

<= br>
On 23 May 2024 02:06:26 CES= T, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood@comcast=2Ecom> wrote:
On 5/22/24, 09:11, "Sebastian Moel=
ler" <moeller0@gmx=2Ede <mailto:=
moeller0@gmx=2Ede>> wrote:
[SM] The solution is IMHO not to try =
to enforce rfc7282 

[JL] ISTM t=
hat the things in 7282 are well reflected in how TSVWG operates=2E I know f=
rom experience it can be hard when rough consensus doesn't go your way - it=
 happens=2E And at the end of the day there are always competing technical =
solutions - and if L4S indeed does not scale up well and demonstrate suffic=
ient benefit (or demonstrate downside) then something else will win the day=
=2E


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E P= lease excuse my brevity=2E
------WO2D9WBX7Y5YY7RA5RJVNB39MWD63W--