IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?

<toby.moncaster@bt.com> Tue, 08 September 2009 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
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 747293A68F7 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.404, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 szN3N+evNgey for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7035D3A67FF for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.61]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:20:06 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:20:05 +0100
Message-ID: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70CF2B9F3@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <200909080803.n8883cTu017272@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [re-ECN] Name for BoF?
Thread-Index: AcowWutkyr3ARC99SvycGnbxKQZMFgAAcD9A
References: <200909072221.n87ML9QC010631@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk><4AA59278.3030906@ee.ucl.ac.uk> <200909080803.n8883cTu017272@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
From: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
To: <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>, <re-ecn@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2009 08:20:06.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C4A5080:01CA305D]
Cc: ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
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: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:19:38 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email