Thanks a lot, Martin for the initiative.
As much as i am a +111 of incuding things like AQM into any new CC design
considerations, i will be happy for an initial charter to be
"lowest common denominator" work first just to hacve a WG that does the
mostly bureaucractic but important first steps, and hopefully in parallel
can collect individual submissions for a second charter round after it has
proven that this CC-coalesced form of organizing the work will work out.
In my WG we always had this charter + non-charter work as two good parallel
tracks, and of course the non-charter work folks had to have longer breath,
but in he best of cases we could have them also to help with the already
chartered work.
>From that perspective i think the ask for refining charter is secondary to
showing the critical mass of candidates for what you presented as
your proposed core charter aspects (e.g. towards internet standards).
I was just looking through the stats, and out of roughly 10,000 RFC, we
have only about 100 internet standards, so i think its certainly a level
of our work that could get more cycles in contributors minds. Yes, it may be
painfull
at times to collect the necessary evidence for it, but we do have it, and
i very much hope that by continuing to invest the hard work into it,
it does continue to establish a high degree of quality
and "field (internet) proven".
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 11:52:00AM -0700, Martin Duke wrote:
> Hello Transport Area,
>
> I hope everyone had a good IETF 114. I sure did.
>
> In particular, I appreciated the level of engagement at the TSVAREA meeting
> when we discussed a potential Congestion Control Working Group.
>
> Meeting video here: https://youtu.be/TSpK8C0DqDc?t=619
> Mailing list thread starts here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/S0q0WyRBvqHEopqLz34G3b0tsKA/
> and lastly, the straw-man proposed charter:
> https://github.com/martinduke/congestion-control-charter
>
> The main takeaways:
> (1) Most participants supported this work, but a few think that
> standards-track congestion controls are mostly a waste of time and resources
> (2) There appears to be enough interest in actively authoring/editing the
> main documents to make progress
> (3) While the main proposed deliverables are process-oriented and
> non-controversial, there is disagreement on what is "in" or "out" of
> working group scope (loss recovery, AQM, multipath, etc)
>
> Now that the ADs have rallied the area, it is time to hand off refinement
> to the community. *We need at least two volunteers* to complete the process
> of gathering consensus on a charter. I hope that a rapid tempo of
> discussion on this list could avoid the need for a BoF. However, If a BoF
> is needed to reach this consensus, these proponents would be expected to
> chair it, presumably in London. These proponents would presumably
> eventually either become working group chairs or edit the deliverables, but
> volunteering now is not a commitment to either.
>
> Though a lower priority than finding these volunteers, we would also
> welcome individual drafts addressing any of the deliverables listed in the
> draft charter.
>
> Please email Zahed and me if you're interested.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
--
---
[email protected]
