[tsvwg] draft-carlberg-tsvwg-ecn-reactions -- which WG?

[ken carlberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've been asked publically and privately about my thoughts as to where this document should end up -- TSVWG or RMCAT.  When the question was first brought up I was indifferent because I could see a case for both.  However, when I thought about it for a while, I felt more comfortable advancing this through TSVWG.  

The reason for this line of thoughts is that only a portion of the ECN Reactions draft deals with congestion control algorithms.  And while RMCAT talks about the generic term of "mechanisms" in its charter, the heart of the charter and deliverables seems to focus on algorithms, which is really just one type of mechanism.  On the other hand, the Reactions draft looks into other "mechanisms" like FEC, signaling, and most importantly, the impact of a set of users not responding to ECN.  And its this last item where we bring in some simulation work and is probably the strongest reason (ie, the simulation results) as to why its beneficial to have this in an IETF document.  And its these other items that seem out of scope of RMCAT.

Assuming this draft is accepted as a working group item in TSVWG, I would also want to send the document to RMCAT for review when we get to a WG last call for comments stage, though I sure the core set of folks will be attending both sets of meetings and mailing lists.

If folks feel I've missed something, please don't be shy in letting us know :-)

-ken