[tcpPrague] L4S BoF Proposal on the wiki

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

All,

The L4S BoF proposal is here:
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki#Transport


There's 4 hours left, if anyone wants to suggest any changes.
I'll be off-line for a while, but I'll look at email before the cut-off.

In the mean time, I'll formally send the request to Mirja (we can change 
the wiki in parallel until the deadline).

Cheers


Bob

On 03/06/16 17:17, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]>:
>>>
>>> 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/

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