IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpPrague] Enough energy for an L4S/TCP Prague BoF?

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Wed, 01 June 2016 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AE912D61F for <tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qnWzsdSrAnGX for <tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC77712D0C4 for <tcpPrague@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id C0638C9422; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:53:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:53:12 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <20160601215312.GA25116@verdi>
References: <574EBEA2.8080705@bobbriscoe.net> <20160601152908.GB1754@verdi> <574F2A2D.9070407@bobbriscoe.net> <574F4F29.9040409@bobbriscoe.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <574F4F29.9040409@bobbriscoe.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpprague/0tgKbyJHsQFygnJIk6QmOJMXYVw>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, TCP Prague List <tcpPrague@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpPrague] Enough energy for an L4S/TCP Prague BoF?
X-BeenThere: tcpprague@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To coordinate implementation and standardisation of TCP Prague across platforms. TCP Prague will be an evolution of DCTCP designed to live alongside other TCP variants and derivatives." <tcpprague.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpprague/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpprague@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague>, <mailto:tcpprague-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:53:19 -0000

Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
> 
> John, Gorry,
> 
> A random new thought...

   (I'm still working on a reply to Bob's earlier email today: I'm
tending to make it a private reply since I'm not seeing a lot of interest
in discussing it on the tcpprague list.)

> Another mechanism I've seen for this sort of thing is a mini-BoF within 
> an existing WG agenda.

   I'm not aware of any rules pertaining to such a mini-BoF -- I'd guess
the WGCs are entitled to call a section of their WG session a "mini-BoF"
and operate under near-BoF rules...

> Am I correct that a mini-BoF is appropriate for extending a WG's charter
> in a more major direction than just adding one doc, and/or where it's
> not clear whether a new WG might be needed instead?
> It could possibly be a tsvwg mini-BoF.

   ISTM that is up to the TSVWG chairs.

> Or perhaps a joint tcpm, tsvwg, aqm mini-BoF, if such a thing exists?

   I really doubt such a thing exists.

   I'd be happy to see what Bob is suggesting as part of a TSVWG agenda.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status