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

Just one more suggestion (a variation really...):

Context - CONgestion EXposed (with "ext" = "ex'ed")

> -----Original Message-----
> From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Bob Briscoe
> Sent: 28 September 2009 19:32
> To: re-ECN unIETF list
> Subject: [re-ECN] Acronym for BoF / w-g?
> 
> 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: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
> >To: <toby.moncaster@bt.com>om>, <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>uk>, <re-
> ecn@ietf.org>
> >Cc: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
> >
> >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: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of toby.moncaster@bt.com
> > > Sent: 08 September 2009 09:20
> > > To: Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R; re-ecn@ietf.org
> > > Cc: ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
> > > 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: 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > re-ECN mailing list
> > > re-ECN@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
> 
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn