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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Greg,

'Coexistence with Classic ECN' has the opposite problem that it could 
imply coexistence with the Classic ECN /spec/ (i.e. all possible ways it 
could be deployed) no matter what ways it is actually deployed.

I figured that much of the draft is about establishing what existing 
practice is (using monitoring). As David says 'Existing Practice' in the 
title would not imply that existing practice is widespread single-queue 
Classic ECN AQMs. Indeed, more than that, I don't think it applies 
anything about what existing practice is.



Bob

On 09/11/2022 13:56, Black, David wrote:
> Greg,
>
>> 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,
> That may construe the scope of the draft too narrowly - there's RFC 3168 FQ material in there ...
>
> Thanks, --David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Greg White
> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:36 AM
> To: Bob Briscoe
> Cc: tsvwg IETF list
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Change title of draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4sops?
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> 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                               https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://bobbriscoe.net/__;!!LpKI!mXLENetihNq88kJmMSBBzvX-eJMv488EbnVM4HgNkJQhXxWYLMdtz2yEaDe0ZDnsXD7-9wCHIBSRgvSGDYs$  [bobbriscoe[.]net]
>
>

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