Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review

["Woundy, Richard" <[e-mail]>]

>that multiple vendors have already implemented a proprietary solution
to the problem in their equipment

Maybe some other folks on this mailing list know what is implied by
"proprietary solution", but I would like to see a few examples of these,
and see whether we're solving the same problems, e.g. exposing
congestion events vs reprioritizing traffic, etc.

> p.s. if this starts a firestorm telling me how to do my job, or
telling the IESG how to do theirs, then I probably won't bother making
the extra effort for transparency in the future.

Your and Stewart's efforts at IESG transparency for the deliberations of
this particular effort are *extremely* helpful. I can't say that enough.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: David Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:31 AM
To: Woundy, Richard; 'ken carlberg'; 'John Leslie'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review

Hi,

speaking as the person likely to be the Responsible AD for such a WG
...

Don't put it all on Stewart. 
Stewart raised some points that a number of others have also raised.
Stewart somehow got the job of putting his concerns in writing.

Let me try to increase transparency while we await the issues in
writing.
(These are my impressions, and I'm also a new IESG member, so please
cut me some slack ... ;-)

Are we being fair in asking such questions for CONEX but not all other
BOFs?
I think it fair to say that not all BOFs are asked the same detailed
questions, such as which ISPs have indicated any plans to deploy the
technology.
But it is also fair to say that all BOFs are expected to answer many
of the some basic questions, such as
is there significant community interest?
is there an adequate community interest that is willing to commit to
do the work?
does the significant community interest seem strong enough that it
will last beyond approving a charter? (lots of commitment seems to
evaporate once a charter is approved)
is the problem a real problem?
is the problem well enough understood to actually engineer a solution?
is standardization required to solve the problem?
is there significant community interest in the same direction, or do
people have lots of different ideas about how to solve the problem, so
consensus might be difficult to reach?
is it clear how the technology would be used, and how useful it would
be?
is the IETF the right place to do the work, or would another
organization be more appropriate?
Given the limited resources available (for editing, chairing,
reviewing, directing, etc.) is this the most important work for the
IETF (and the responsible area) to focus on at this time?
and so on ...

I think the biggest questions regarding CONEX so far are:
"Is this at the point where standardization is required, or is this
research?"
"Is a standard required because there are multiple vendors getting
demand from multiple operators for this type of solution to the stated
problem?"

It is not yet clear that multiple vendors are seeing demand for such a
solution, that multiple 
vendors have already implemented a proprietary solution to the problem
in their equipment,
that vendors are at least somewhat likely to implement such a standard
in their equipment, and 
that multiple operators would deploy such a standard if it were
available. 
This raises the questions of whether a standard is required, and
whether IETF is the appropriate place for such work.

I am not authorized to speak for the IESG, but here are my
impressions:
We (the IESG) are paying attention. 
We have asked Stewart to write up his concerns so the mailing list can
respond.
We are soliciting feedback from vendors and operators in the community
so we can assess demand.
We have sent the proposal for External review.
and we continue to discuss it within the IESG.

Some are convinced it should be approved; others are not convinced.
At this point, it is not obvious that it will be chartered.
At this point, it is not obvious that it will not be chartered.
It is under discussion. We have not yet reached rough consensus within
the IESG, and we do not believe the IETF has yet reached rough
consensus on this proposed WG.

Hopefully that gives you some insight into the current status of the
request.
We are working to reach a resolution.

dbh

p.s. if this starts a firestorm telling me how to do my job, or
telling the IESG how to do theirs, then I probably won't bother making
the extra effort for transparency in the future. Fair warning. dbh.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Woundy, Richard
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:25 PM
> To: ken carlberg; John Leslie
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
> 
> > let's cut him some slack, please.
> 
> Fair enough... I will cut Stewart some slack as well.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ken carlberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:14 PM
> To: John Leslie
> Cc: Woundy, Richard; Stewart Bryant; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Conex charter - now in External Review
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:21 AM, John Leslie wrote:
> 
> >   In the past, Lars has asked other IESG members to put 
> their concerns
> > in writing. It is reasonable to assume Stewart is responding to
such
> > a request. Please recall, Stewart is a new IESG member, and 
> may not be
> > familiar with all the history we would like him to be -- i.e.
let's
> > cut him some slack, please.
> 
> I quite agree about cutting the fellow a lot of slack.  And I'll
> respectfully extend my apologies if my earlier response was
considered
> too abrupt....its always hard to convey proper tone over email.
> 
> I deeply appreciate Stewart speaking up on the matter on the 
> list.  And
> whether the proper response to the business oriented questions are
"it
> doesn't matter" or "its out of scope" is possibly splitting hairs.
I
> just feel strongly that a measure of consistency approach 
> taken by all.
> 
> as for the MPLS question, I thought that Bob Briscoe had responded
to
> that question at the Anaheim meeting.  And if so, perhaps he could
> reiterate it on the list.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> -ken
> 
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>