IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?

João Taveira Araújo <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk> Mon, 07 September 2009 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995AB28C201 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj226YB3uu8E for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk (dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk [128.40.42.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DE23A6ADD for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (host86-179-200-205.range86-179.btcentralplus.com [86.179.200.205]) (authenticated bits=0) by dax.ee.ucl.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n87N5ZH8017313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 00:05:49 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4AA59278.3030906@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:08:40 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Taveira_Ara=FAjo?= <j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
Organization: UCL
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
References: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner-Information: Please contact mailhelp@ee.ucl.ac.uk for more information
X-MailScanner-ID: n87N5ZH8017313
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UCL_EE-MailScanner-From: j.araujo@ee.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: re-ECN unIETF list <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:08:51 -0000

Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Folks,
>
> One important issue I never raised - the name.
>
> Congestion Exposure
> Congestion Visibility
> Congestion Transparency
>
> I've had people who hate the word transparency, as it's ambiguous 
> wither you can see it or not.
> Exposure sounds more active than visibility, so I've gone with that at 
> the moment. But any strong objections, speak now!
>
> And a short form:
> CEX?
> re-ECN?

re-con? I don't really like shoving ECN in the mix as it seems to imply 
reinserting ECN is the only way of revealing congestion, which may not 
be the case in the future. Plus recon ties in with the military meaning. 
Either way this discussion isn't that important before BoF. TANA/LEDBAT 
also figured out the name post-BoF if I remember rightly.

Joao.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email