Re: [Congress] Erik Kline's No Objection on charter-ietf-congress-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your comments, Erik, please see inline below.

//Zahed


On 2023-03-09, 07:58, "iesg" <[e-mail]> wrote:


# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-congress-00-00
CC @ekline

## Comments

### P1

* I'm not sure the charter needs to capture this comment/tone about prior
  era research groups.  Perhaps just trim it down a bit, maybe:

  "and proposals seldom emerged having passed Internet-scale testing"

  or something?
Fine with me, I may propose some more trimmed version .


### P7/Bullet 1

* What is the basis for requiring AD approval for application of an algorithm
  to a restricted deployment environment?

I think the idea is to enforce some sort of check here to make sure the adopted work falls within the charter. However, I personally think the chairs with the help of the WG should be able to make the decision hence the AD’s involvement is not required unless the chairs are not able to call the consensus. I am fine with removing – “and any such restriction
requires approval of the Responsible AD
” part.


### _general_

* Are detection and adaption to other changes in path characteristics that
  might appear like congestion also be in scope?

  I'm thinking of networks of wireless links where the topology changes that
  can result in changes in latency/RTT, packet reordering, and of course
  packet drops that are handover-related but not necessary congestion-related
  (though I think might perhaps appear as congestion?).
We discussed the inclusion of wireless transport here (https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues/25). The understanding is - this is included and need not to spell out specifically. RFC5033 already includes wireless network characteristic as a criterion for evaluation.