Re: [re-ECN] Congestion Exposure BOF approved

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Lars,

At 13:20 28/09/2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just wanted to drop you all a quick note that after the IAB/IESG BOF
>call last Friday, we've approved the Congestion Exposure BOF for the
>next IETF in Hiroshima.

Excellent news - thanks.


>I'll work with the proponents on detailing the BOF agenda

Presumably primarily on this list.

>and
>assigning some BOF chairs.

Presumably off list initially.

>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.

Yes, it was largely my fault the BoF proposal was too long. People on 
this list have been working on a Problem Statement and some 
discussion has occurred on how to make the BoF proposal shorter already.

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?


>What acronym do you want to have this scheduled under? CE is a bit too
>generic. It's a bit difficult to change the acronym when going from
>BOF to WG (as experienced with TANA/LEDBAT), so it'd be good it we can
>find a stable one.

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?

The tone I perceived we're trying to convey is "This w-g is about 
exposing congestion information - a very generic capability at the 
network layer. And even tho we have a candidate protocol, we don't 
want to name the w-g after just one candidate."

Ultimately "Congestion Exposure" says on the box what it does inside. 
The w-g proposal is about a generic capability to expose congestion 
info. I like it - and the list has reached consensus on it. We just 
haven't reached consensus on an acronym (yet).

There's a distinction between the name for a BoF/w-g and the content 
of the BoF. The BoF has to be about one big reason why we want to do 
this, but should a w-g be saddled with a name based on one 
motivation? I hope not - the history of the IETF is littered with 
protocols that got used primarily for a different purpose than that 
originally intended.

more...


>Lars
>
>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?


Bob





>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design