Re: [Ecn-in-quic] Volunteers for design team

On 23/11/2017, 09:15, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
> Hi
>
> No it does not need to be a private group within a group. What I want is however that we have a team that can commit some minimal amount time to get things running, besides the usual chores that they are commited to.
> 15 people on a mailing list does not usually mean 15 people working 24/7 on the topic :-)
>
>
> You are probably right that we may not end up in the same problem as the spin bit design team, the case for ECN is also better documented than the spin bit.
>
> /Ingemar
Yes I thought that was the case... but we need to be sure.

(i) May be a small writing team is a good way to start
(ii) Maybe a set of committed reviewers to promptly check what we have 
written would also be good.

I'd volunteer for (i), but if I am not needed at the moment as (i), then 
I definitely would like to be (ii)!!!

Gorry
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ecn-in-quic [mailto:ecn-in-quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gorry
>> Fairhurst
>> Sent: den 23 november 2017 10:08
>> To: ecn-in-quic@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ecn-in-quic] Volunteers for design team
>>
>> On 23/11/2017, 08:40, Ingemar Johansson S wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> The resign team staff is now
>>>
>>> Me
>>>
>>> Koen De Schepper
>>>
>>> Bob Briscoe (not confirmed)
>>>
>>> So I believe that we have sufficient critical mass for the ECN
>>> usage/encoding aspects.
>>>
>> So is this a private group? - I think it shouldn't be, it would be foolish for some
>> small subset of the group to propose something on their own (see 2 below).
>>> What is needed is one or two QUIC protocol geek who can look at this
>>> from a QUIC protocol/wireline format angle.
>>>
>>> Please drop me (or this group) an email if you are interested to join
>>> the fun.
>>>
>>> With that said.. I see that the spin bit discussion seems to spin out
>>> of control, my impression but perhaps I am a pessimist ?.
>>>
>>> It is real important that we come up with a clear statement and
>>> proposal in this group to avoid the same fate.
>>>
>> (1) This may be not wishing to have a public readbale header. If we do ECN
>> the way we spoke about, the feedback is encrypted, and that doesn't have
>> that specific problem.
>>
>> (2) One snag was that the DT from QUIC "spin" worked in a way did not bring
>> all people directly to a document that they supported. We can avoid that.
>>
>>> /Ingemar
>>>
>>> ==================================
>>>
>>> Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc.
>>>
>>> Master Researcher
>>>
>>> Ericsson Research
>>>
>>> Network Protocols&  E2E Performance
>>>
>>> Labratoriegränd 11
>>>
>>> 971 28, Luleå, Sweden
>>>
>>> Phone +46-1071 43042
>>>
>>> SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
>>>
>>> ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
>>> <mailto:ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
>>>
>>> www.ericsson.com
>>>
>>> The world is full of magical things patiently
>>>
>>>      waiting for our wits to grow sharper
>>>
>>>                 Bertrand Russell
>>> ==================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecn-in-quic mailing list
>>> Ecn-in-quic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic
>> Gorry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecn-in-quic mailing list
>> Ecn-in-quic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic