Re: [tcpm] [aqm] [tcpPrague] [tsvwg] (Bar) BoF @IETF-95 'Ultra-Low Queuing Delay for All' (L4S, DualQ Coupled AQM, TCP Prague)?

Folks,

We have a time and room for this Bar BoF:
Date/time: 09:00 - 10:00 ART (= 12-13:00 UTC) Thu 7 Apr 2016
Room: Quebracho B

We have the regular IETF remote attendance facilities in that room.
The room is not being used for the following session, so we don't have 
to vacate early.

We're building the agenda - will send shortly.
We want to allow most time for people to talk from the floor.

The general structure will be:
* Introduction/Background
* Clarification Questions
* Recent Activity: Design / Evaluation / Industry
* Build a standardisation roadmap
* Build a BoF for the Berlin timeframe, and should it be non-WG forming.
* Discussion / Q&A

Sorry for delay setting this up. My fault.
I've bcc'd a few people who have been asking about this specifically.

Bob

On 30/03/16 21:13, Aaron Falk wrote:
> Did this get scheduled?
>
> --aaron
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Just to try to be helpful ...
>
>     On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net
>     <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>> wrote:
>
>         John,
>
>         On 19/02/16 18:23, John Leslie wrote:
>
>             Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net
>             <mailto:ietf@bobbriscoe.net>> wrote:
>
>                 I'm cross-posting 'cos this impacts 3 IETF WGs and
>                 interested implementers.
>
>                 We would like to propose a Bar BoF at the Buenos Aires
>                 IETF, about L4S,
>                 DualQ and solutions to the TCP Prague Requirements.
>
>                 This feels like it belongs as a non-WG-forming formal BoF.
>
>                 It describes work spanning at least three WGs; and
>             could benefit from
>             formal scheduling to avoid conflicts with those WGs and
>             others.
>
>                 OTOH, it really isn't to the point where a WG charter
>             can reasonably
>             be drafted. First we must decide whether the work _can_ be
>             split among
>             existing WGs.
>
>                 However this may turn out, I wish to participate remotely.
>
>         OK, we'll see if the secretariat can help us with that.
>
>
>     I believe that happens at http://www.ietf.org/meeting/amreq.html.
>     If you put "TSV" in as "type of meeting", your happy TSV ADs would
>     see the request.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Spencer
>
>         Unfortunately we ran out of time for the formal BoF deadline
>         on Friday.
>
>
>         Bob
>
>
>             --
>             John Leslie <john@jlc.net <mailto:john@jlc.net>>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             tcpPrague mailing list
>             tcpPrague@ietf.org <mailto:tcpPrague@ietf.org>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague
>
>
>         -- 
>         ________________________________________________________________
>         Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     tcpm mailing list
>     tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/