[Congress] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-congress-00-01: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 March 2023 22:28 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: congress-chairs@ietf.org, congress@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <167891930517.62833.4190266215933969662@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:28:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/congress/x8OHLe1vPZ81qLmjlmFsVqQg8K8>
Subject: [Congress] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-congress-00-01: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-congress-00-01: No Objection

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/



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

** The scoping text is broad and seems to redundantly reiterated that.

(a) “CONGRESS is authorized to adopt work relating to Congestion Control and
AQM without rechartering.”

(b) Later there is a list of items that are “specifically in scope”. 
Practically, I don’t find that they narrow anything.  Given the statements of:

==[ snip ]==

* Algorithms mature enough for standardization. CONGRESS may consider not
only the open Internet, but also algorithms focused on other deployment models
(e.g. datacenters and other controlled environments, reduced resource
deployments such as IoT, and so on).

* Algorithms proposed for Experimental status
==[ snip ]==

It seems almost any congestions control is in scope.  The subsequent list items
of “multi-path congestions control, etc.” seems like specific items that were
already permitted by the first two bullets.

Per (a), most of what was referenced in (b) would have been in scope.

** I applaud the sentiment of “CONGRESS will not remain open simply because ‘in
case’ further work comes along.”  What is the mechanism that will be used to
realize this principle?  As noted above, the charter scope is extremely broad,
however, the milestones don’t reflect a large backlog of work that needs to get
done.

** Editorial.  The paragraph starting with “CONGRESS is chartered to conduct …”
has several unneeded line breaks.

[Congress] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charte… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker