Re: [p2pi] [tana] TANA proposed charter

So, let me add a few things to this discussion, to make sure I 
understand what is being said.

 From what I saw at the BoF, there was strong consensus to proceed, and 
this still seems to be so.

The charter seems close to what we need. I'd prefer a title for the 
second work item that reflects the purpose of the RFC-to-be (see note 
below on the name of the group). I'd expect more RFCs to follow later, 
if this WG develops work in this space.

There were a few emails on using a DSCP for LBE service, and since I 
raised this at the BoF, I'd like to clarify a little of what I intended. 
I think the WG should look at the transport issues applied to the 
current Internet - In my opinion the work should not *require* router 
changes to enable ECN, implement new DS codepoints, etc. The work should 
stimulate a new type of transport that *should* in turn be able to use 
new mechanisms such as an LBE DS offering, or ECN-provided feedaback, 
Quick-Start, and a range of other mechanisms that may help in the 
future. I think this is what the proposed Charter says now...

I think the name of the BoF was OK, but the name doesn't reflect the 
role being sketched by the Charter. The charter is very 
Congestion-Control orientated, and rightly so in my opinion. A name that 
better reflects that would be good. We've had various suggestions... and 
I guess we need to "pick" one, of those I have seen, the most promising 
ones seem to be:

Scavenger Network Congestion Protocols
Background Congestion Control (BACKCC)
Background Congestion of File Flows (BACKOFF) - or similar.
Minimizing Impact of Large Transfers (MILT)
Congestion-Optimisation for Large Transfers (COLT)
Transport for Impact Limited Large Transfers (TILT)

Note: As I recall, an IETF WG can not have a hyphen or underscore in 
their name.

Best wishes,

Gorry
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi