Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] CONGestion RESponse and Signaling (CONGRESS) charter

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

There were a couple of reasons the name went this way:

- At IETF 114 there was a lovely bikeshed about whether "congestion
control" was the right name for this class of problems, so I picked
"response" which hopefully carries less baggage.
- I would like nontraditional indications of congestion to be in scope
(certainly beyond loss, probably beyond delay and ECN if we're creative
enough to do that). Speaking loosely, AQM fits in with this notion of
feedback. "Signals" don't have to be intentionally sent.
- An S-word fits the acronym :-)

I'll take two actions from this thread:
- make this scope a little clearer
- Open an issue to mirror Gorry's concerns about keeping AQM in scope.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:46 PM Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> On 09/11/2022 09:44, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov, 2022, at 11:10 am, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2/ Another question: Why 'and Signalling' in the title?
> >> Other than the title and response to congestion signals, the charter
> doesn't say anything about signalling itself.
> >> If, say, there were more work on tunnelling ECN or something, would
> tsvwg take that on, or congress?
> > "Congestion signalling" refers not only to the mechanisms that allow
> congestion to be detected by transports, but the algorithms (from drop-tail
> overflow upwards) which generate those congestion signals to control
> transports' demand on network resources.
> >
> > The former aspect, referring to the wire protocols, may well be properly
> handled by TSVWG and/or individual protocol WGs (eg. TCPM, QUIC, etc).  The
> latter aspect, however, is more general in terms of protocol and more
> specific to congestion control itself.  I think "… & Signalling" would
> refer very naturally to text mentioning AQM in the body of the charter.
>
> [BB] You're right. So this sort-of implies that 'congestion signalling'
> is a rather ambiguous phrase to have in the title. If both meanings will
> be handled by this group, then fine. But if only the generation of
> congestion signals is in scope, the title might need to be re-worked.
>
>
> Bob
>
> >
> >   - Jonathan Morton
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>