Re: [re-ECN] Congestion Exposure BOF approved

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2009-9-28, at 19:43, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>> I'll work with the proponents on detailing the BOF agenda
>
> Presumably primarily on this list.

yes.

>
>> and
>> assigning some BOF chairs.
>
> Presumably off list initially.

Yes.

>> One bit of feedback from the I* is that the
>> proposed charter is lengthy but light on actual proposed work. We  
>> need
>> a crisper BOF agenda and proposed WG charter.
>
> I'd be wary of adding more work (as there's a lot in each item
> listed), but if you mean more info is needed on each item, certainly  
> can do.

I probably shouldn't have said "light" but "unclear". What exactly the  
proposed work items are needs to still become more to-the-point  
understandable.

> What's the process (including deadlines and who has to approve it)  
> for:
> - defining a BoF announcement (the one linked from the IETF agenda)?
> - defining a draft charter?

Both of these are what you (the plural you) and me need to work on and  
agree on. Soon.

> Before getting down to candidate acronyms, what's behind the "bit too
> generic" comment? Was that feedback from the I* or a personal view?
>
> Is there concern about:
> - needing a name for a protocol in the title?
> - or needing more about motivation in the title?

My personal view. Basically, "CE" as an BOF/WG acronym is a bit too  
short IMO. If we can find something a bit more mnemonic, that'd be nice.

(Note that I think the BOF long name is fine - this is about the  
acronym.)

>> PS: Secretariat (BCC'ed), please earmark an agenda slot for the BOF,
>> but wait with the allocation until we know what acronym we'll go  
>> with.
>
> When do we have to say how long a slot we need?

Now. I'm guessing you want at least 2h?

Lars