Subject: [re-ECN] Congestion Exposure BOF approved

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:20:30 +0300

Hi,

I just wanted to drop you all a quick note that after the IAB/IESG BOF  
call last Friday, we've approved the Congestion Exposure BOF for the  
next IETF in Hiroshima.

I'll work with the proponents on detailing the BOF agenda and  
assigning some BOF chairs. One bit of feedback from the I* is that the  
proposed charter is lengthy but light on actual proposed work. We need  
a crisper BOF agenda and proposed WG charter.

What acronym do you want to have this scheduled under? CE is a bit too  
generic. It's a bit difficult to change the acronym when going from  
BOF to WG (as experienced with TANA/LEDBAT), so it'd be good it we can  
find a stable one.

Lars

PS: Secretariat (BCC'ed), please earmark an agenda slot for the BOF,  
but wait with the allocation until we know what acronym we'll go with.

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:43:13 +0100

Lars,

>call last Friday, we've approved the Congestion Exposure BOF for the

Excellent news - thanks.

>I'll work with the proponents on detailing the BOF agenda

Presumably primarily on this list.

>and
>assigning some BOF chairs.

Presumably off list initially.

>One bit of feedback from the I* is that the

I'd be wary of adding more work (as there's a lot in each item 
listed), but if you mean more info is needed on each item, certainly can do.

Yes, it was largely my fault the BoF proposal was too long. People on 
this list have been working on a Problem Statement and some 
discussion has occurred on how to make the BoF proposal shorter already.

What's the process (including deadlines and who has to approve it) for:
- defining a BoF announcement (the one linked from the IETF agenda)?
- defining a draft charter?

>BOF to WG (as experienced with TANA/LEDBAT), so it'd be good it we can

Before getting down to candidate acronyms, what's behind the "bit too 
generic" comment? Was that feedback from the I* or a personal view?

Is there concern about:
- needing a name for a protocol in the title?
- or needing more about motivation in the title?

The tone I perceived we're trying to convey is "This w-g is about 
exposing congestion information - a very generic capability at the 
network layer. And even tho we have a candidate protocol, we don't 
want to name the w-g after just one candidate."

Ultimately "Congestion Exposure" says on the box what it does inside. 
The w-g proposal is about a generic capability to expose congestion 
info. I like it - and the list has reached consensus on it. We just 
haven't reached consensus on an acronym (yet).

There's a distinction between the name for a BoF/w-g and the content 
of the BoF. The BoF has to be about one big reason why we want to do 
this, but should a w-g be saddled with a name based on one 
motivation? I hope not - the history of the IETF is littered with 
protocols that got used primarily for a different purpose than that 
originally intended.

more...

>but wait with the allocation until we know what acronym we'll go with.

When do we have to say how long a slot we need?

Bob

>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:06:53 +0300

Hi,

> Presumably primarily on this list.

yes.

> Presumably off list initially.

Yes.

> listed), but if you mean more info is needed on each item, certainly  

I probably shouldn't have said "light" but "unclear". What exactly the  
proposed work items are needs to still become more to-the-point  
understandable.

> - defining a draft charter?

Both of these are what you (the plural you) and me need to work on and  
agree on. Soon.

> - or needing more about motivation in the title?

My personal view. Basically, "CE" as an BOF/WG acronym is a bit too  
short IMO. If we can find something a bit more mnemonic, that'd be nice.

(Note that I think the BOF long name is fine - this is about the  
acronym.)

> When do we have to say how long a slot we need?

Now. I'm guessing you want at least 2h?

Lars

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:21:34 +0100

Lars,

>>Presumably primarily on this list.

OK let's get going again with this on the list.

>proposed work items are needs to still become more to-the-point

Understood.

>Both of these are what you (the plural you) and me need to work on and

OK - another two item to get back to working on, on this list.

>(Note that I think the BOF long name is fine - this is about the

I don't think we proposed CE. There was a bit of a thread a while ago 
where loads of suggestions came out, but we seemed to be diverging rather.

I proposed CEX, which either stands for Congestion EXposure or 
Congestion Exposure eXperiments. [Or perhaps CExEx thinking about it 
now.] Remember, you can never have an excess of CEX.

Some agreed, some didn't.

I'll re-post the last posting on this, and get this going again.

>Now. I'm guessing you want at least 2h?

Yup. Definitely IMO.

Bob