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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

John, Gorry,

A random new thought...
Another mechanism I've seen for this sort of thing is a mini-BoF within 
an existing WG agenda.
I'm not sure whether a mini-BoF needs any official procedure. 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.
Or perhaps a joint tcpm, tsvwg, aqm mini-BoF, if such a thing exists?


Bob


On 01/06/16 19:32, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> John,
>
> Before getting back to the WG-forming vs. non-WG forming BoFs debate, 
> let's explore your idea from a couple of weeks back, which might not 
> even need a BoF:
>
> On 22/05/16 00:55, John Leslie wrote:
>>     Thus, I'd like to see a first deliverable be a Proposed Standard laying
>> out ground-rules for (quite possibly multiple) Experimental status documents.
>> I know I've seen a fairly wide range of proposals differing in details from
>> L4S (some of them very dependent upon variations in delay); and it's hard
>> to believe that nobody will still want to push for their idea.
>
> I think you are saying this PS would:
> a) state the requirements for a new form of "ECN not the same as 
> drop", targeted at much lower latency queuing (including L4S, ABE and 
> others).
> b) free up the use of ECT(1) if necessary for this purpose (needed by 
> L4S but not ABE), by formally declaring the end of the ECN nonce 
> experiment, and updating all the RFCs (including PSs) that refer to 
> "same as drop" behaviour for ECN, or the ECN Nonce.
>
> If such an RFC could be written (see below), it would serve the 
> purpose we were hoping that a BoF would serve: to describe how a set 
> of pieces might fit together as part of a larger programme of work, 
> even if they are standardized in separate WGs (and even if some 
> improve the Internet on their own whether or not the master-plan 
> happens).
>
> It would have the advantage over a BoF that it would require the 
> consensus of all the affected WGs (as does any IETF RFC).
>
> But...
> Can someone who understands IETF process better than I, answer these 
> questions:
> * Can a Proposed Standard just 'clear a space' without actually 
> defining a specific protocol to fill that space? Any examples from 
> history?
> * Don't protocol requirements tend to be written in informational 
> RFCs, not PS?
>
> Even if PS is an appropriate status, I see problems writing such an 
> RFC so abstractly that it would encompass as-yet-unknown alternative 
> proposals. Of course, I see no problem describing where an existing 
> proposal fits, e.g. ABE.
>
> For instance, draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-01 has very similar scope 
> to the document you propose, except:
> a) It has currently been written as experimental (but it says what it 
> would say if it was PS).
> b) it precisely (but very generally) describes the new semantics of 
> the identifier.
>
> Take a read of it, then tell us how you think it could be written 
> without any specifics,... to become the doc you are thinking of.
> I think the IESG (and the intended audience) would have a hard time 
> understanding such an abstract document.
>
> Or perhaps you are /not/ saying that it has to be completely 
> non-specific. Perhaps ecn-l4s-id is already close to the sort of doc 
> you are talking about. For instance:
> * it describes the problem
> * it refers to the technology that would be necessary and sufficient 
> in the network (some sort of DualQ);
> * it has a section on "Pre-Requisite Transport Layer Behaviour", where 
> requirements on TCP, SCTP, RMCAT etc. have been written.
> * It also obsoletes the ECN nonce.
>
> *A New Working Group?**
> *
> I believe such a doc could and should be written in tsvwg, with formal 
> last calls to tcpm, aqm, rmcat and iccrg as well.
>
> I do not see that a separate WG is necessary, or even useful, for 
> writing this.
> What's your reasoning?
> We need to be quick, cos if we need a new WG, we've only got 2 days ;)
>
>
> There are a couple of things that a BoF would achieve that a new I-D 
> would not achieve:
> * socializing with the rest of the IETF, particularly the IESG and 
> IAB, that this work is starting, so they can understand it and expect it.
> * highlighting the potential architectural importance of the work, 
> particularly to the IESG and the IAB (e.g. sunsetting TCP Reno, 
> implications for Diffserv, etc).
>
> There must be other ways to achieve these two goals? A plenary 
> presentation? An IAB workshop?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On 01/06/16 16:29, John Leslie wrote:
>> Bob Briscoe<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>> Can some folks respond on whether they think it is right to hold a BoF
>>> on this topic in Berlin.
>>     I must admit I see little reason for a non-WG-forming formal-BoF.
>>
>>     The formal-BoF process is really organized around forming a WG. An
>> informal-BoF can be organized entirely outside this process; and were
>> I to attend Berlin, I would certainly want to participate.
>>
>>     It's getting awfully late to start organizing a WG-forming BoF, so
>> I'd tend to set my sights on an informal-BoF.
>>
>>     We should definitely note draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response, recently
>> submitted to TSVWG, presumably intended to become adopted as a WG draft,
>> and setting a basis for relaxing the "same-as-drop" rule of RFC3168.
>>
>>     It mentions draft-khademi-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn, which presumably
>> is intended to become a TCPM WG draft and offers a different experiment
>> from dualq which we've been discussing here.
>>
>>     I think it's more important to get involved in those discussions
>> than to try for a formal-BoF in Berlin.
>>
>>     Obviously, YMMV...
>>
>> --
>> John Leslie<[e-mail]>
>>
>> -- 
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/

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