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

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

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]>