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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

At 20:37 28/09/2009, Fred Baker wrote:
>Sounds like IP over Large Public Data Networks, aka eye-plop-down. :-)

Maybe some time off would help :)


>I personally would like to stay away from the term "transport", as it
>is ambiguous in context - this is the network layer, the transport
>layer is one up, and people frequently use the term "transport" to
>mean "the layer below the one I care about" - everything from "the
>fiber" to "http" depending on context. There is no need to bless the
>ambiguity.

I agree.


>I would also suggest staying away from "re-ecn" unless we are agreeing
>up front to implement that specific solution.

Agree too.


>I would also avoid the term "truthfully", as this is all about
>configuration, and different rates call for different configuration.
>Consider for example discussed in 
>http://www-video.eecs.berkeley.edu/Proceedings/INFOCOM2004/DATA04/37_4.PDF 
>. The authors reported that with 90% confidence variation in delay
>(and therefore externally measured congestion) was less than 1 ms (and
>therefore externally measured congestion was nil), with the same
>confidence interval they saw "frequent" spikes on the order of 10 ms
>(TCP synchronization?), and in a few events saw variation in delay as
>high as 100 ms (probable routing events). We obviously don't want CE
>marks at 1 ms, the value at 10 ms is questionable (if it goes right
>back down, what's the point), but when it becomes sustained above a
>few ms there is an issue. If we set the marking threshold at <pick a
>mean queue depth 1..20 ms or a rate 90..99% of capacity> is it a more
>"truthful" value than if you picked the next lower or the next higher
>integer?

I think Toby had in mind the sender reinserting a 
truthful expectation of what the network exposed. 
But you're right truth could be considered as a 
judgement on whether what the network exposed in 
the first place was real truthful congestion.

Overall, I'd agree whatever - I don't believe 
truth is a top level concept that we need in the 
title, even tho it's an important requirement to define for the work.


>That brings me back to "congestion exposure" or "congestion exposure
>experiments".

What about an acronym?
Do you think Kwok's concern over becoming a CEX pot needs heeding?


Bob


>My two yen...
>
>On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:32 AM, 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: <[e-mail]>
>>>To: <[e-mail]>om>, <[e-mail]>uk>, <[e-mail] >
>>>Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> > Behalf Of [e-mail]
>>> > Sent: 08 September 2009 09:20
>>> > To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; [e-mail]
>>> > Cc: [e-mail]
>>> > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>>> > > [e-mail]
>>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > re-ECN mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>>
>>________________________________________________________________
>>Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
>>_______________________________________________
>>re-ECN mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design