Re: [re-ECN] Draft Agenda

[Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm wondering if there's been further (offlist) progress on the bof 
agenda?  I've a few comments on the proposed agenda, below.

I think these are about the right goals for now/the BoF:

[e-mail] wrote:
> 1) Decide what questions we will ask at the BoF in order to get clear
> hums that result in a WG being forms.
> 2) Define EXACTLY the problem we are addressing (by writing a problem
> statement document). And keep this concise and focussed (e.g. only
> concentrate on a single aspect).
> 3) Write a BRIEF email summarising the key points from the BoF proposal
> which can be used to publicise the BoF on a bunch of other lists.
> 4) Find a couple of experienced people to chair this - ideally both
> having chaired successful BoFs and at least 1 having some experience in
> this space.
> 5) Work out an agenda - I envisage at most 3 presentations - the
> problem, re-ECN as a potential solution (but without ANY protocol
> detail) and a summary of what the WG would do. Then work out who
> presents these.


But I'm a little concerned that discussion on the list/the draft agenda 
to date are, instead, vectoring towards a general introduction to the 
topic which will imply a 2nd BoF at a future IETF.  Since I don't think 
we need to go there (bar bof already; plenty of momentum on this list), 
let me suggest some agenda tightening:


 > 5 mins      administrivia
 > 10 mins     introduction by chairs
 > 20 mins     the problem

I think 20min is a little optimistic, particularly given that the room 
will feature people who have not read the mailing list and/or drafts, 
and are there to "cross pollinate".  There are 2 levels of problem to 
expose/discuss/agree on, IMO:

1/ the real world problem that needs to be addressed
	. challenges with congestion and fairness
	. this is really only motivation

2/ the technology problem that is going to be solved
	. equipping IP with some mechanism to carry additional
	  information that will allow network routing mechanisms to
	  make more "informed" choices, and account for network activity
	. might include discussion of implications for other protocols
	  and deployment

"1/" is necessary for motivation, but it is subjective, and the folk in 
the room are not there to discuss *all* possible ways to solve 
congestion/fairness issues, but rather a narrow set of (objective) 
technical possibilities ("2/"), and that's where you want the focus.


If there was going to be a discussion of requirements (per a comment 
from Rich Woundy on an earlier draft of the problem statement document), 
this might be a logical place to do it, in the agenda.


 > 15 mins     towards a solution

So, with agreement that there is an IETF-tractable problem, and some 
sense of requirements on the table, people would have a basis to 
reasonably evaluate re-ECN (and any other proposal that found its way to 
the discussion) in the context of determining how it fits into the plan 
for a WG -- which is its only purpose in being on the agenda of this 
BoF.  (Bob already knows its a great idea ;-) ).

 > 10 mins     demonstration

?

 > 40 mins     discussion

Assuming focus has remained on the question of whether there is IETF 
tractable work here, this discussion should be about whether or not 
there is a draft charter which adequately supports the sense of the room 
for progress to be made.

 > 10 mins     sumnmary
 > 10 mins     questions and hums


So, can I suggest:

  5 mins     administrivia
  5 mins     introduction by chairs
40 mins     the problem
		context/motivation
		technical problem
20 mins     requirements
20 mins     towards a solution
		overview of re-ECN
		demonstration?
20 mins     draft charter discussion
10 mins     questions and hums



Leslie.

[e-mail] wrote:
> As promised, here is the start of a discussion on the draft agenda for
> the BoF... This is making the assumption that we will get 2 hours of
> meeting time. I personally feel 2 hours is plenty - if we got more than
> that the risk is that we will lose the focus (and lose our audience).
> 
> 5 mins      administrivia
> 10 mins     introduction by chairs
> 20 mins     the problem
> 15 mins     towards a solution
> 10 mins     demonstration
> 40 mins     discussion
> 10 mins     sumnmary
> 10 mins     questions and hums
> 
> Details: 
> 
> "The problem" will give the background to why we want to do this work,
> and why now. It will probably be split into two halves - the general
> problem for the Internet and the specific problem as seen by an
> operator. It should largely cover the first half of the problem
> statement document we are jointly working on.
> 
> "towards a solution" will cover the second half of the problem statement
> document. It will describe an overview of re-feedback and show how this
> can allow congestion to be exposed by end-users. It WON'T have details
> of re-ECN itself, however it could explain briefly the concept of
> policing to a congestion rate.
> 
> The "demonstration" should really take 5 mins, but allowing 10 mins
> allows for things going wrong. At the moment the plan is to show a
> simple re-ECN system where a series of different size files are
> transferred across a link. At the BoF end there is a monitor that will
> display the congestion level. We will be able to insert extra congestion
> and show that the monitor can give you the congestion upstream and
> downstream. The idea is to show that this is not just research but that
> it is ready for the IETF - we aren't trying to impose our solution, we
> just need to show that there is a solution possible...
> 
> The "discussion" will need to be led by the chairs to prevent it going
> off into protocol details or other dead-ends. The key thing is to work
> towards getting agreement that the CONCEPT of exposing congestion (and
> thus correcting the information asymmetry) is a good thing, and that it
> is the starting point towards a more open and transparent means of
> controlling the use of the Internet by monitoring the one thing that
> actually impacts all users... One of the key things here will be to show
> there is already an active community working in this area.
> 
> "summary" just needs to bring together any loose ends from the
> discussion and try and leave people with a clear set of messages, for
> instance: congestion is a key metric, currently congestion is hidden
> from the layer that needs to know about it, revealing this congestion
> will correct the information asymmetry and lead to better control of the
> Internet, etc
> 
> "The questions" will need a whole email thread of their own, but that
> can wait till a bit nearer the day. The key thing is to have very clear
> closed questions- that is questions that only have a yes or no answer...
> 
> Toby
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------