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

This topic may well fit within the scope of TSVWG.We could in principle 
consider such a discussion, *IF* that's the best use of face-to-face 
time at the meeting.

Since L4S is approved, please discuss the topics there.

Gorry

On 01/06/2016 22:53, John Leslie wrote:
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpPrague mailing list
> tcpPrague@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpprague
>