Re: [p2pi] [tana] TANA proposed charter

Gorry Fairhurst <> Thu, 23 October 2008 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4F33A67A5; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D123A66B4; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIJ-kQTsCS3y; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2DB3A6AF0; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m9NF1ilm019279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:01:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:01:45 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:14:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [p2pi] [tana] TANA proposed charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

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,

p2pi mailing list