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

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Fri, 03 June 2016 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.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 662B012D6EF for <tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vL-UrD-t7Et6 for <tcpprague@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 304AB12D6F1 for <tcpPrague@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 148.58.125.91.dyn.plus.net ([91.125.58.148]:50834 helo=[192.168.0.10]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1b8rmQ-0001jP-9T; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:17:02 +0100
To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <574EBEA2.8080705@bobbriscoe.net> <CC121871-8B28-46BB-84B0-401BDE529E59@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <5751AD7D.6070807@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:17:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CC121871-8B28-46BB-84B0-401BDE529E59@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpprague/JCWXv49TE1DyA_6dWzBhdlEMRx4>
Cc: 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: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 16:17:07 -0000

Mirja,

Status report on the BoF proposal for you & the list:...

You will have seen we've uploaded a problem statement.
The BoF proposal is complete in theory, but completely absent on the wiki.
I'll fill in the wiki in the next couple of hours.

Sorry to everyone that this won't provide long to react to anything they 
disagree with. So here's a summary of what will be there:

The proposal is to have a non-WG-forming BoF, with a suggestion that in 
practice it takes the form of a mini-BoF within TSV-AREA.
We are still putting it through as a BoF request, because we think it is 
important that the IESG get a heads-up on this, rather than the first 
they know being when RFCs start to appear two years later. Then if it is 
decided to do a mini-BoF within TSVAREA, at least the IESG/IAB can know 
to come along.

We will suggest that the questions asked are:
1/ Support this work?
2/ Interested in helping implement, test, write, review, etc.?
We believe we should leave the question of how the work is organised 
(across WGs? a new WG? a hybrid of the two? etc.) for the ADs, rather 
than burn time in a meeting on that.

One of the main purposes will be to demonstrate to the community that 
there are people working on this, and others that are planning to.
Thank you for everyone who has volunteered to give short talks about 
your current activity around L4S, and/or your plans.



Bob



On 01/06/16 20:31, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
>> Am 01.06.2016 um 12:53 schrieb Bob Briscoe <research@bobbriscoe.net>:
>>
>> However, I've noticed that the discussion on this list seems to move in fits and starts.
>> Can anyone suggest why?
> I believe it would help to foster discussion if someone (you) would send a problem statement to the list because right now there are a lot of people interesting in this topic where everybody might have his/her own idea what this is about. Having a common understanding of want we want is the first step. For me most of things I’ve seen so far are very wide spread and I guess there something for everybody that sounds interesting…
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/