Re: [Congress] John Scudder's Block on charter-ietf-congress-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

> On 16 Mar 2023, at 00:07, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-congress-00-01: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I found the final paragraph to be odd:
> 
> ```
> CONGRESS will not remain open simply because “in case” further work comes along.
> ```
> 
> (Nit, the "because" in that sentence isn't quite grammatical, I think you can
> delete it without harm.)
> 
> Do you mean something like this?
> 
> NEW:
> CONGRESS will close once all of its milestones have been completed.

Yes, I think this is what it should mean. Should be clarified in the next version.

> 
> If you don't mean that, what *do* you mean?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - A number of unfortunate linebreaks look to have been introduced in version
> 01. Please fix these before releasing for IETF review.

OK, thanks.

> 
> - I agree with Paul that the WG acronym seems likely to lead to future
> confusion. I encourage you to find another; my recent experience with CAN ->
> CATS is that it's not that hard to make this change even late in the game.

We can consider that if it becomes too much of issue..

> 
> - Is there some specific reason for the use of the weak "can" instead of the
> more intentional "will" in this paragraph?

Not to me at least. Chairs and proponents can say more. 

> 
> ```
> The CONGestion RESponse and Signaling working group (CONGRESS) can review some
> of the impediments to early congestion control work occurring in the IETF, and
> can generalize transport in this area from TCP to all of the relevant transport
> protocols.
> ```
> 
> This is your charter, after all. It seems to me that the word should be "will".
> The same applies to
> 
> ```
> The working group
> should consider a revision
> ```
> 
> ISTM "should" should be "will".

noted!

//Zahed