Re: [tsvwg] Change title of draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops?

[Greg White <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

I agree with your concern that the title tends to overstate what the scope of the document is, and am open to trying to find a more focused title.  Thanks for (re-)starting this discussion, and for providing a suggestion to get it going. 

I'm wondering about the term "Existing Practice" though.  To me this gives the impression that the IETF believes that single-queue Classic ECN AQMs are the "Existing Practice" in the Internet, whereas I think the predominant view is that they are rare at best.  Could we not be more specific in the title?  Maybe:

"Operational Guidance on Coexistence with Classic ECN during L4S Deployment"

However, I would not want to see both of those abbreviations expanded in the title. Perhaps we could argue that both of these abbreviations are widely known enough. 

-Greg




On 11/9/22, 8:41 AM, "Bob Briscoe" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Greg,

    l4sops has always been scoped to only concern coexistence between L4S 
    and Classic. The title implies it is about all aspects of deployment, so 
    I suggest we narrow it.

    Current title:
         Operational Guidance for Deployment of L4S in the Internet
    Suggested:
         Operational Guidance on Coexistence with Existing Practice during 
    L4S Deployment

    I suggest the 'Internet' scoping could be specified in the text, but not 
    the title.
    Abbreviations in titles are usually expanded (unless very widely-known). 
    So that would end up as:
    Operational Guidance on Coexistence with Existing Practice during 
    Deployment of Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable throughput (L4S)

    That might need the word 'Technology' on the end to properly make sense. 
    But it's already very long.


    Bob

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