IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review

"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Wed, 28 April 2010 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAD63A69EB for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.937, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPQ5998LBO02 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCAE3A69B0 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.92]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.78380464; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:02:27 -0400
Received: from pacdcexcmb05.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.116]) by PACDCEXCSMTP03.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:02:27 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:01:52 -0400
Message-ID: <EE00404438E9444D90AEA84210DC406793DC75@pacdcexcmb05.cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8B8C5AF-37C2-4DD6-BDDB-760FC616BE8F@g11.org.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
Thread-Index: Acrm1zRR9hE9ZtyNSsu6tsacTqS3RAAAWtHQ
References: <20100401165723.GA1375@verdi><4A916DBC72536E419A0BD955EDECEDEC06363F60@E03MVB1-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net><20100406192914.GG11835@verdi> <4BBBF64C.2020101@thinkingcat.com><6036E869-9710-4F7B-BB30-5A70C7250D36@nokia.com><20100413184853.GA76668@verdi> <4BD6F2DD.3040202@cisco.com> <20100427151601.GF16203@verdi> <EE00404438E9444D90AEA84210DC406793D9DB@pacdcexcmb05.cable.comcast.com> <A8B8C5AF-37C2-4DD6-BDDB-760FC616BE8F@g11.org.uk>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2010 14:02:27.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F3DAE20:01CAE6DB]
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:05:15 -0000

> I would like to see how this same litmus test has been conducted in
the past for *all* other BoFs, working groups, and even drafts.  Point
being -- that's a very nasty rathole to fall into.

I *completely* agree.

I have been associated with the DECADE work, which was just chartered
this week. The same questions could have been asked for that work, but
weren't.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: ken carlberg [mailto:carlberg@g11.org.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:32 AM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: John Leslie; Stewart Bryant; re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review


On Apr 27, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Woundy, Richard wrote:

> (Let's NOT discuss these questions on the list!!!)
> 
> Is there a list of vendors that have stated that they plan to
implement
> CONEX technology in their products? Is there a list of vendors that
have
> stated that they have no plans to implement CONEX technology in their
> products?

I quite agree about not discussing the above questions, or even
considering them in any formal manner on this list or IESG discussions.
I sympathize with the curiosity that stems from those questions, but
they are quite out of scope of the IETF in chartering WGs.  But if
others feel differently, I would like to see how this same litmus test
has been conducted in the past for *all* other BoFs, working groups, and
even drafts.  Point being -- that's a very nasty rathole to fall into.

cheers,

-ken

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email