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

["Ingemar Johansson S" <[e-mail]>]

Hi

As stated earlier I agree on the proposed approach below.

/Ingemar 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: den 13 november 2009 16:16
> To: ken carlberg
> Cc: Ingemar Johansson S; bo zhou; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter
> 
> Ken,
> 
> That's what I hoped I had said - you've said it more clearly.
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> At 14:24 13/11/2009, ken carlberg wrote:
> >Bob,
> >
> > > I want to manage expectations here.
> >
> >I'm positive the ADs are thrilled to read this :-)
> >
> >The thing I (and probably Ingemar) would ideally like to see is a 
> >charter that doesn't preclude the introduction of proposed work 
> >involving transports other than TCP.  This is perhaps a 
> question to the 
> >chairs/ADs, but would it be possible to have a charter that makes a 
> >more general statement about transport protocols, and then 
> for now have 
> >a specific milestone that only identifies a work item for TCP and no 
> >other transport protocol?
> >
> >the advantage in doing something like this is that if one of 
> us were to 
> >come up with an idea that addresses UDP via RTP/RTCP, then we could 
> >introduce it to the group for their consideration without 
> having to ask 
> >for a change in the charter.  And by the same token, by not listing 
> >other transports as a current milestone, we don't commit the 
> proposed 
> >group to something that could be considered too much / too soon.
> >
> >-ken
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design 
> 
>