Subject: [Masque] Recent consensus calls

From: Eric Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 16:52:17 -0700

Hi all, 

As there were some questions brought to the list about the recently concluded consensus call, we thought it would be valuable to provide some additional insight into our assessments.

But first, taking a step back, we think working through these fundamental, solution-agnostic issues now, followed by a larger WGLC with external reviews, is important in helping us move forward. We are trying to avoid an endless process of rehashing technical debates and continual re-exploration of the design space. (Though we recognize that new information can always prompt reconsideration of previous decisions.)

Here is the breakdown of our consensus assessment:

- Issue #12: There was support for this during the interim, which was not modified by any further comments on the list or issue, so the PR was merged.

- Issue #24: This was discussed during the interim, with general support and no opposition either in the room or on the list, so the PR was merged.

- Issue #25: We took the editorial change and clarified the design issue in #30, which is still open and currently has an active consensus call on the list. We encourage everyone to chime in on that thread!

- Issue #26: In the room, we observed strong consensus for proxying packets, yet weak consensus against proxying payloads. The discussions on the list appear to confirm that stance. Given that adding a requirement would generally necessitate consensus in support of that requirement, the text was not changed. Note that the document also does not prohibit any future solution from supporting proxying payloads. As such, the WG will likely need to carry this forward into future design discussions.

In order to productively scope the conversation around IP proxying, we agreed to define the requirements of those solutions ahead of time, specifically so that the group could work through many of the discussions that we’ve been having. This is great progress, and thanks to everyone in the WG who has been productively contributing to those discussions!

As we converge on a shared understanding of the solution space, the WG has also indicated willingness to move forward with consideration of concrete solutions for IP proxying in order to make it easier to reason about the remaining issues under discussion. However, as above, we're trying to limit the number of unanswered questions we carry forward, as we think that will help us more easily reach consensus on a final solution.

As always, please keep bringing technical ideas and comments to the issues and to the list. The currently running consensus call is looking for input on the proposal to remove route negotiation as a requirement (issue #30).

Thanks,
Eric and Chris