Hi, Since I’m not participating at this IETF, I use this opportunity to state my support of everything Bob says here.
( Maybe this can also lead to a broader recognition that CC is indeed a network layer function… AQM is a reminder of this truth. ) Cheers, Michael > On 25 Jul 2022, at 13:49, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Martin, > > On 24/07/2022 17:38, Martin Duke wrote: >> In practice, TCPM does most standards-track work in this area. RMCAT has a >> specific problem, and TSVWG by definition is a grab bag for anything else >> that doesn't fit. >> >> Modulo the debate about this replacing RMCAT, TCPM and TSVWG would no longer >> be the venue for this work. > > [BB] Returning to the issue of whether AQM should be added: > https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues > <https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/issues> > I would like to see this question discussed in the session later today. > > If that happened, aqm would be added to your above list of things removed > from the tsvwg charter. > > Indeed I would tend not to support the idea of a separate CC WG unless AQM > was also included. > Reason: I would be concerned that the amount of CC standardization work will > be too low to sustain active attention and attendance. > > > Bob > > >> >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 8:47 PM Toerless Eckert <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Martin: General question. Just curious. >> >> Is the proposed charter meaning to take away items from existing WGs >> chartre, for example in the hope to give those existing groups >> breathing room for other work (TSVWG always needs that for example ;-). >> Or do you think this is all new and nothing of this was part of other >> WG charter... >> >> Cheers >> Toerless >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:49:11PM -0700, Martin Duke wrote: >> > Hello Transport Enthusiasts, >> > (bcc: TCPM, QUIC, and ICCRG) >> > >> > Zahed and I would like to invite you to the TSVAREA meeting at IETF 114 >> > (Monday 13:30 local time), where we will be having a more action-oriented >> > discussion than usual. >> > >> > *TL;DR* the way we do congestion control standards is written down in RFC >> > 5033 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5033.html >> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5033.html>>, and is no longer >> > aligned with how congestion control innovation happens or the family of >> > transport protocols that use standard congestion control. The IETF is >> > largely irrelevant to new congestion control deployments. So we'll discuss >> > a proposal to fix it. This meeting will have some BoF-like elements but it >> > is not formally a BoF. >> > >> > In consultation with several stakeholders, we've devised a strategy to >> > address this: >> > >> > * Colin Perkins, IRTF chair, has agreed to add at least one chair to ICCRG >> > (I'm sure Colin would welcome volunteer candidates!). While retaining its >> > hosting presentations role, there will be renewed emphasis on serving as a >> > forum to produce experimental RFCs, with a charter update if necessary. >> > >> > * The Transport ADs are going to consider chartering a new IETF working >> > group to update the administrative framework for congestion control >> > standardization, and potentially adopt any proposals that are sufficiently >> > mature for the standards track. We've formulated a proposed charter. Please >> > consider it a starting point for discussion. >> > https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/ >> > <https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter/> >> > I ask you to review this document before attending. It answers many of the >> > questions you may already have. >> > >> > In Philadelphia, we hope to answer as many of the following questions as >> > possible, in order: >> > * Is there rough consensus on the problem to solve? >> > * Are the deliverables right? >> > * Are there people willing to take responsibility for those deliverables? >> > (The meeting is over if the answer is "no") >> > * Does the proposed charter need changes? >> > * Is anyone especially excited to chair this WG? >> > >> > Please come to Philadelphia having thought about these questions and >> > prepared to answer them. You are also welcome to share thoughts on the >> > tsv-area list; all other recipients have been Bcced: so that the rest of >> > the thread will go to only that list. Subscribe if you want to track the >> > discussion. >> > >> > Although charter wordsmithing is somewhat premature, you are also welcome >> > to file issues and PRs on the github linked above. >> > >> > See you there, >> > Martin and Zahed >> > Your friendly Transport ADs >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > tcpm mailing list >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm> >> >> >> -- >> --- >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > <http://bobbriscoe.net/>
