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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Ingemar,

I can confirm I am available for (i).


Bob

On 23/11/17 09:47, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>>> Gorry
>>> Fairhurst
>>> Sent: den 23 november 2017 10:08
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> 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 [phone]
>>>>
>>>> SMS/MMS [phone]
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic
>>> Gorry
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecn-in-quic mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecn-in-quic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecn-in-quic