IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?

Soo-Hyun Choi <s.choi@computer.org> Mon, 07 September 2009 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <s.choi@computer.or.kr>
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 2504A3A68E3 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 LUvFLxMp1+yD for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f217.google.com (mail-fx0-f217.google.com [209.85.220.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5503A67D9 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so2248927fxm.37 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: s.choi@computer.or.kr
Received: by 10.204.19.132 with SMTP id a4mr12532018bkb.21.1252362532272; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
References: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
From: Soo-Hyun Choi <s.choi@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:28:32 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d19ac441e835195b
Message-ID: <834e74250909071528o8e912fbr6afc1682a4ab5e7b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: re-ECN unIETF list <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 22:28:31 -0000

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 23:21, Bob Briscoe<rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> One important issue I never raised - the name.
>
> Congestion Exposure
> Congestion Visibility
> Congestion Transparency
>

Vote for Congestion Exposure.

> 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?
>

Maybe, CEX as re-ECN could be one of them.


Cheers,
Soo-Hyun

UCL Computer Science
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/S.Choi


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email