Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter

[bo zhou <[e-mail]>]

+1 support the proposed approach.

Regards,

Bo

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Ingemar Johansson S <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> As stated earlier I agree on the proposed approach below.
>
> /Ingemar
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Briscoe [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: den 13 november 2009 16:16
> > To: ken carlberg
> > Cc: Ingemar Johansson S; bo zhou; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter
> >
>  > Ken,
> >
> > That's what I hoped I had said - you've said it more clearly.
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > At 14:24 13/11/2009, ken carlberg wrote:
> > >Bob,
> > >
> > > > I want to manage expectations here.
> > >
> > >I'm positive the ADs are thrilled to read this :-)
> > >
> > >The thing I (and probably Ingemar) would ideally like to see is a
> > >charter that doesn't preclude the introduction of proposed work
> > >involving transports other than TCP.  This is perhaps a
> > question to the
> > >chairs/ADs, but would it be possible to have a charter that makes a
> > >more general statement about transport protocols, and then
> > for now have
> > >a specific milestone that only identifies a work item for TCP and no
> > >other transport protocol?
> > >
> > >the advantage in doing something like this is that if one of
> > us were to
> > >come up with an idea that addresses UDP via RTP/RTCP, then we could
> > >introduce it to the group for their consideration without
> > having to ask
> > >for a change in the charter.  And by the same token, by not listing
> > >other transports as a current milestone, we don't commit the
> > proposed
> > >group to something that could be considered too much / too soon.
> > >
> > >-ken
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
> >
> >
>



-- 
Regards,

Bo Zhou
China Mobile