Bob, <snip> > My questions are: > * Do you think discussions should start on building a BoF on > "Congestion Exposure" in Stockholm (getting late but still do-able)? > * Or less ambitiously should we arrange another ad hoc BoF > (bar BoF) in Stockholm, building on ICCRG work in Tokyo this > week, to get a community together to form a BoF later? > * Or do people actively oppose anyone doing anything yet on > congestion exposure or re-ECN in the IETF or IRTF?
I'm certainly in favor of a discussion on building a BoF. The worst case scenario is that we find we still have a ways to go in defining a charter and milestones and we simply have a bar-BoF in Stockholm to help progress things. > Background on TCP-unfriendly and on re-ECN > ------------------------------------------- > You may be aware that, in San Francisco we had discussions > in TSVArea (prompted by Matt Mathis's talk) on whether to > move beyond TCP-friendliness as a comprehensive direction > for both sharing Internet capacity and future congestion > controls. In the IRTF ICCRG the same week it was decided to > set up a design team to work on the way forward and propose > it in an informational RFC - Matt Mathis has kicked off a > first shot <draft-mathis-iccrg-unfriendly-00.txt>. We just > had the launch meeting of that design team at the ICCRG here > in Tokyo. Just to be clear, was the outcome of the Tokyo meeting a conclusion that re-ECN needs to be defined/standardized? And if so, should we expect other building block type of proposals from the ICCRG group, or is this yet to be determined? Or from this one foundation of a milestone (ie, re-ECN), will only informational drafts be subsequently proposed in any initial charter of the group? Cheers, -ken
