Re: [Congress] Éric Vyncke's Block on charter-ietf-congress-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Zahed,

Thanks for the prompt reply. See below for EV>

Regards

-éric

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 14:23
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Block on charter-ietf-congress-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments. Let’s address your blocking comments.

//Zahed


On 2023-03-09, 11:01, "iesg" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-congress-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-congress/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, the world has changed since TCP is no more *the* protocol, so this work
is welcome.

I think that this text needs a rewrite:
`However, if the working group has
adopted further work in accordance with the guidelines above, it can recharter,
add milestones for them, and continue until that work is complete.`

Isn't the above putting the cart before the horses ? I.e., why not doing the
usual process of rechartering *before* adopting an IETF draft ? (this of course
does not prevent the WG to work/discuss an individual draft)
The intention here is allow the WG to be closed and not create the expectation that CONGESS is an everlasting WG for congestion control algorithm in IETF. Of course, the WG will adopt items that falls into the charter and exists until those are completely delivered for publication (or dropped for some reasons). I start to think that we can just remove the whole last sentence (starting form – However,) . Will that help?
EV> if the sentence is removed, then I think it is cleaner.


Another point is about what will be the deliverables of this WG ? The current
charter appears to be more suited for a directorate (doing reviews of WG
documents) than for a WG (publishing documents).
There is a proposed milestone: deliver 5033bis to IESG. Is that not good enough?
EV> honestly, it is not obvious when reading the charter... May I suggest to rewrite the following text in a more assertive way ?
OLD TEXT
Accordingly, CONGRESS is chartered to conduct a review of RFC 5033 and to
consider a revision that relaxes requirements to encourage more experiments in
the IRTF/IETF.
NEW TEXT

CONGRESS is chartered to publish a revision of RFC 5033. The WG should
consider a revision that relaxes....
EV> plus one paragraph in the charter for the work item ?



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


One comment about `empirical evidence of safety` as safety is rather vague (or
do you mean information security or network stability ?).
My understanding is avoiding congestion collapse.

EV> OK I understand what you mean, so why not simply using those terms "avoiding congestion collapse" ?
 "Empirical" is also
rather vague, should it rather be "experimental" ?
OK.


I second Erik Kline's comment on ### P7/Bullet 1.
Please follow up on that in the other email thread.