IETF Logo Mail Archive

[re-ECN] Name for BoF?

Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> Mon, 07 September 2009 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.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 9EC5A3A67F9 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 8khcH4ZO+mGY for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC50E28C11C for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:21:16 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.100.81]) by i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:21:16 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1252362074987; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:21:14 +0100
Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.61.25]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n87ML9QC010631 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:21:12 +0100
Message-Id: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:21:08 +0100
To: re-ECN unIETF list <re-ecn@ietf.org>
From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2009 22:21:16.0171 (UTC) FILETIME=[840C2DB0:01CA3009]
Subject: [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 22:20:55 -0000

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?

I'm undecided - some people should have heard of re-ECN, which 
favours that one.
CEX sounds like something you can only want more of ;)



Bob


________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,               Networks Research Centre, BT Research

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email