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

I am worried the use of CEX and Exposure may 
generate too much traffic for the list.
It may also trigger some censorship with some jurisdictions and organizations.
What do you tell the immigration officer who checks your passport when he asks
you what convention/meeting you are attending 
before he lets you into the country?
We may have too many people attending our meetings.

I like C-IT (See It) for Congestion Information Transparency
I like Transparency more than Exposure, as 
Transparency hints at trust, while Exposure
hints at unwanted disclosure (like the publishing of movie star private info).

-- Kwok --

At 02:32 PM 9/28/2009, 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: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
>>To: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>om>, <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>uk>, <re-ecn@ietf.org>
>>Cc: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
>>
>>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
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>re-ECN@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn