Re: [re-ECN] Acronym for BoF / w-g?

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Sounds like IP over Large Public Data Networks, aka eye-plop-down. :-)

I personally would like to stay away from the term "transport", as it  
is ambiguous in context - this is the network layer, the transport  
layer is one up, and people frequently use the term "transport" to  
mean "the layer below the one I care about" - everything from "the  
fiber" to "http" depending on context. There is no need to bless the  
ambiguity.

I would also suggest staying away from "re-ecn" unless we are agreeing  
up front to implement that specific solution.

I would also avoid the term "truthfully", as this is all about  
configuration, and different rates call for different configuration.  
Consider for example discussed in http://www-video.eecs.berkeley.edu/Proceedings/INFOCOM2004/DATA04/37_4.PDF 
. The authors reported that with 90% confidence variation in delay  
(and therefore externally measured congestion) was less than 1 ms (and  
therefore externally measured congestion was nil), with the same  
confidence interval they saw "frequent" spikes on the order of 10 ms  
(TCP synchronization?), and in a few events saw variation in delay as  
high as 100 ms (probable routing events). We obviously don't want CE  
marks at 1 ms, the value at 10 ms is questionable (if it goes right  
back down, what's the point), but when it becomes sustained above a  
few ms there is an issue. If we set the marking threshold at <pick a  
mean queue depth 1..20 ms or a rate 90..99% of capacity> is it a more  
"truthful" value than if you picked the next lower or the next higher  
integer?

That brings me back to "congestion exposure" or "congestion exposure  
experiments".

My two yen...

On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:

> Hi Congestion Exposers (or should that be ex-posers?),
>
> Lars & Jari need an acronym.
>
> Can someone suggest a way to decide between the ideas proposed so  
> far below, rather than just going round and round on the list?
>
> Context - CONgestion EXposed Truthfully
> Counted - COngestion {UNiversally Truthfully} ExposeD
> Exact - EXposing All CongesTion
> Expect - EXPosing CongesTion
> ExCeTra (pronounced etc.) - EXposing Congestion TRAnsparently
> CEX - Congestion EXposure or Congestion Exposure eXperiments
> ConEx - Congestion Exposure
> re-ECN - re-inserted Explicit Congestion Notification (or receiver  
> aligned)
> re-con - Reinserted Congestion? Also alluding to military  
> reconnaissance
> Trac - Transport with accountabiliy
> Travis or Tracvis - Transport with congestion visiblity
>
> I've removed a couple the original proposer didn't really like, to  
> try to start converging.
>
> If we're voting, I vote for CEX (with a soft C of course).
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>> Subject: RE: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?
>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:01:43 +0100
>> From: <[e-mail]>
>> To: <[e-mail]>om>, <[e-mail]>uk>, <[e-mail] 
>> >
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>
>> 6 more suggestions:
>>
>> Connexion - CONgestioN EXposure InformatiON
>> Context - CONgestion EXposed Truthfully
>> Convex - CONgestion Voluntarily EXposed
>> Counted - COngestion {UNiversally Truthfully} ExposeD
>> Exact - EXposing All CongesTion
>> Expect - EXPosing CongesTion
>>
>> Of these I think I prefer exact, counted and context as the words  
>> convey something of what we mean.
>>
>> Toby
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> > Behalf Of [e-mail]
>> > Sent: 08 September 2009 09:20
>> > To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; [e-mail]
>> > Cc: [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?
>> >
>> > If you want to go for something catchy I had been thinking on the  
>> lines
>> > of:
>> >
>> > ExCeTra (pronounced etc.) - EXposing Congestion TRAnsparently
>> >
>> > I am exactly split between Congestion Transparency and Congestion
>> > Exposure. Congestion Visibility is weak...
>> >
>> > Toby
>> >
>> > PS - glad we got something out in time for the deadline. Let's  
>> hope it
>> > proves suitable to get us to the starting gate in Hiroshima...
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> > > Behalf Of Bob Briscoe
>> > > Sent: 08 September 2009 09:03
>> > > To: re-ECN unIETF list
>> > > Cc: Ingemar Johansson S
>> > > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?
>> > >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > More views welcome?
>> > >
>> > > Summary of 'votes' so far...
>> > >
>> > > At 00:08 08/09/2009, João Taveira Araújo wrote:
>> > > >Bob Briscoe wrote:
>> > > >>Folks,
>> > > >>
>> > > >>One important issue I never raised - the name.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Congestion Exposure
>> > > >>Congestion Visibility
>> > > >>Congestion Transparency
>> > >
>> > > Congestion Exposure seems to get everyone's approval
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >>And a short form:
>> > > >>CEX?
>> > > >>re-ECN?
>> > >
>> > > Everyone agrees on what it shouldn't be: Not re-ECN
>> > > Less agreement on a replacement:
>> > >
>> > >          CEX
>> > >          ConEx
>> > >          re-con
>> > > Also, one vote for "Wait until later."
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm not so keen on including "Con" for obvious
>> > > reasons :) Choosing something like that can come back and bite  
>> you.
>> > > It also sounds somehow as much like config as congestion.
>> > >
>> > > Some time ago, Toby came up with a clever one:
>> > >          C-IT (pron. "See it") for Congestion Information
>> > Transparency.
>> > > not so useful if we're not calling it transparency tho.
>> > >
>> > > Hey, I've just had a thought, the flag (or
>> > > codepoint) for rest-of-path congestion could be
>> > > called CEX (Congestion Expected), rather
>> > > ambiguous with ECN's "Congestion Experienced (CE)" tho.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bob
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________________________________________
>> > > Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > re-ECN mailing list
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > re-ECN mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn