Subject: Re: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:32:56 -0400

>you need to have submitted a BOF proposal by the deadline. See RFC5434, Section 2, Step 5.

Did we make the deadline?

-- Rich

---

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:05:43 -0400

I think I found my own answer (yes, officially), per
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Transport.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Woundy, Richard
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:33 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:44:22 +0100

Just in case people are interested, it looks as though the IESG will
make their decisions on which BoFs to accept next Friday (25th).

By that time it would be nice to have started some of the preliminary
work that will need to be done if we do get approval... One of the key
things we need to think about is suitable people to chair the BoF. I
believe Rich has already expressed an interest and so we would need to
find A.N.Other...

Toby

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Woundy, Richard
> Sent: 10 September 2009 19:06
> To: [email-masked]; Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R
> Cc: [email-masked]
> >you need to have submitted a BOF proposal by the deadline. See
> RFC5434,
> Section 2, Step 5.
>

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:14:50 -0400

I'd be willing.

[email-masked] wrote:
>> Behalf

---

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:12:47 -0400

>One of the key things we need to think about is suitable people to
chair the BoF. I believe Rich has already expressed an interest and so
we would need to find A.N.Other...

Yes, I have expressed interest in being a BoF co-chair, and I've had
some prior experience that might be helpful here. But I don't think we
should not be campaigning for co-chairs on IETF mailing lists -- in
fact, I don't think there should be any IETF position campaigning at
all.

That's why I sent a *private* email to Bob Briscoe (as the most active
BoF organizer) and to Lars Eggert (as one of the responsible ADs per
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Transport). The other
responsible AD is Jari Arkko.

I would recommend that other folks interested in a potential BoF
co-chair role should also communicate privately to Lars and Jari --
although right now they are probably more focused on whether this should
be an approved BoF for Hiroshima than whom they should pick for
co-chairs. Certainly the deeper pool of candidates they have to choose
from, the better for this group.

In any case, I'll spend more time working on <Re-ECN or whatever>
regardless of my personal role in this group.

Here is some helpful advice from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-7.1:

   BOF organizers often assume that they will be chairing a BOF (and the
   eventual WG).  Neither assumption is always true.  ADs need to ensure
   that a BOF runs smoothly and is productive.  For some topics, it is a
   given that the BOF will be contentious.  In such cases, ADs may want
   to have a more experienced person chairing or co-chairing the BOF.
   Also, those interested in organizing the BOF often are the most
   interested in driving a particular technology (and may have strongly
   held views about what direction an effort should take).  Working
   Groups are often more effective when passionately involved parties
   are allowed to focus on the technical work, rather than on managing
   the WG itself.  Thus, do not be surprised (or offended!) if the AD
   wants to pick one or more co-chairs for either the BOF or a follow-on
   WG.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:44 AM
To: Woundy, Richard; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

Toby

---

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:46:55 -0400

Looking at the recommended steps in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-2, here's my opinion of some
items our group should focus on.

>From step 4: "getting agreement on the problem statement". Toby
Moncaster has made some progress towards a draft already; we should be
assisting him and contributing text.

>From step 6 (note: after the BoF is approved): "identifying areas of
agreement and areas of disagreement". The most fundamental disagreement
(i.e. keeping flow-rate fairness) is probably captured in RFC 5290,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5290. Has anyone identified any candidate
protocols or approaches other than re-ECN?

>From step 7: "produce a proposed charter and iterate on it on the
mailing list". We might be able to start with the BoF proposal.

>From step 8: "decide what questions will be asked during the BOF
itself". This is somewhat different than the questions captured in the
FAQ that Bob and John Leslie worked on. The questions are really about
agreement with the charter, agreement with the problem statement, should
a WG be formed yet, etc. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-4.

We don't have to be a slave to RFC 5434, but it does provide pretty
helpful advice.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:44 AM
To: Woundy, Richard; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

Toby