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

[Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Thanks for the review.

I created a PR on the charter Github to address the issues raised: 
https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/pull/34


Please see inline for further replies:

On 3/16/23 01:21, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote:
>> - 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..

I am in favor of choosing a different name, too. We have a few proposals 
in this Github issue, which should probably be reopened: 
https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues/18


>> ```
>> 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.
>> ```
>>
>> - 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.

I agree that "will" is a better fit for this paragraph, and I updated 
the text accordingly in the PR.


Best,
Reese