Re: [re-ECN] Congestion Exposure BOF approved

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Lars,

At 18:06 28/09/2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2009-9-28, at 19:43, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>>>I'll work with the proponents on detailing the BOF agenda
>>
>>Presumably primarily on this list.
>
>yes.

OK let's get going again with this on the list.


>>>One bit of feedback from the I* is that the
>>>proposed charter is lengthy but light on actual proposed work. We
>>>need
>>>a crisper BOF agenda and proposed WG charter.
>>
>>I'd be wary of adding more work (as there's a lot in each item
>>listed), but if you mean more info is needed on each item, certainly
>>can do.
>
>I probably shouldn't have said "light" but "unclear". What exactly the
>proposed work items are needs to still become more to-the-point
>understandable.

Understood.


>>What's the process (including deadlines and who has to approve it)
>>for:
>>- defining a BoF announcement (the one linked from the IETF agenda)?
>>- defining a draft charter?
>
>Both of these are what you (the plural you) and me need to work on and
>agree on. Soon.

OK - another two item to get back to working on, on this list.


>>Before getting down to candidate acronyms, what's behind the "bit too
>>generic" comment? Was that feedback from the I* or a personal view?
>>
>>Is there concern about:
>>- needing a name for a protocol in the title?
>>- or needing more about motivation in the title?
>
>My personal view. Basically, "CE" as an BOF/WG acronym is a bit too
>short IMO. If we can find something a bit more mnemonic, that'd be nice.
>
>(Note that I think the BOF long name is fine - this is about the
>acronym.)

I don't think we proposed CE. There was a bit of a thread a while ago 
where loads of suggestions came out, but we seemed to be diverging rather.

I proposed CEX, which either stands for Congestion EXposure or 
Congestion Exposure eXperiments. [Or perhaps CExEx thinking about it 
now.] Remember, you can never have an excess of CEX.

Some agreed, some didn't.

I'll re-post the last posting on this, and get this going again.


>>>PS: Secretariat (BCC'ed), please earmark an agenda slot for the BOF,
>>>but wait with the allocation until we know what acronym we'll go
>>>with.
>>
>>When do we have to say how long a slot we need?
>
>Now. I'm guessing you want at least 2h?

Yup. Definitely IMO.


Bob


>Lars

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design