Hi Jason,
It is not just l4s, nqb and udp options are similarly flawed process-wise... so
this is not about me being in the rough.
It is rather determination of consensus, however rough, seems under more or
less sole power of the chairs (like in a court, but without a jury) and chairs
are not bound to act as fair and impartial arbiters... and unlike 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. Sure the IETF lets jockels
like me participate in the process, but no, we do not have any meaningful say.
Because in the end rough consensus is what the chairs declare it to be... And
this is where in private strategy discussions with chairs become problematic.
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.
On 23 May 2024 02:06:26 CEST, "Livingood, Jason" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/22/24, 09:11, "Sebastian Moeller" <[email protected]
><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>[SM] The solution is IMHO not to try to enforce rfc7282
>
>[JL] ISTM that the things in 7282 are well reflected in how TSVWG operates. I
>know from experience it can be hard when rough consensus doesn't go your way -
>it happens. And at the end of the day there are always competing technical
>solutions - and if L4S indeed does not scale up well and demonstrate
>sufficient benefit (or demonstrate downside) then something else will win the
>day.
>
>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
