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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On 2023-03-09, 14:32, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
OK.


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....
This is fine with me.
EV> plus one paragraph in the charter for the work item ?
Not sure we need that.
We already have

“Since RFC 5033<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5033/> was published, many of these conditions have changed. Proponents
often have the opportunity to test and deploy at scale without IETF review. The
set of protocols using these algorithms has spread beyond TCP and SCTP to
include DCCP, QUIC, and beyond. There is more interest in specialized use cases
such as data centers and real-time protocols. Finally, the community has gained
much more experience with indications of congestion beyond packet loss.
”



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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" ?
Fine with me unless anybody objects.
//Zahed