Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> There may need to be some careful wordsmithing of the charter to have
> one that isn't overly restrictive but which ensures we end up with a
> realistic work stack. I am still torn, but I would perhaps favour
> something in the charter like
> 
> "initially we will be concentrating on TCP but given the growing
> importance of other transports these are not being explicitly excluded.
> Specific milestones are set out below for TCP with the intention that as
> these are met, effort can be moved to alternative transports" 

   If I may, I'd like to retreat towards reality... AFAICT, the proposed
charter includes only one item related to transport layer:
] 
] o Specification of necessary CONEX features in TCP, for example to carry
]   congestion information from receiver to sender

   ... which, frankly, I'd be delighted to drop entirely, since how
to move "congestion information from receiver to sender" seems _entirely_
out-of-scope to me...

   However, perhaps we could instead say:
" 
" o Specification of necessary interfaces with transport protocols
"   including, but not limited to, TCP;

   (Of course, IMHO, "necessary interfaces" is an empty set... ;^)

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>