Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?

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: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of toby.moncaster@bt.com
> Sent: 08 September 2009 09:20
> To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; re-ecn@ietf.org
> Cc: ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
> 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: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] 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
> > re-ECN@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn