Subject: [re-ECN] Draft agenda, prep'ing for Anaheim (IETF77)

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:51:05 -0500

Hi,

I wanted to give a bit of an update on planning for the Anaheim meeting. 
  Also, we're probably getting to be delinquent on filing an agenda. 
That's partly because Phil & I have been working with Lars on the 
scheduling problem:  we're currently scheduled into 2 approx 1 hour 
slots that are NOT back to back on Wednesday.  That's suboptimal at the 
best of times, but made worse by the fact that the one we're advised 
will be the best shot at getting RTG players into the room is the 2nd 
one.  We're trying to find a way to take the (currently) first slot and 
reschedule it for later in the week.  Options are few.  We may just 
cancel that session.

With all that -- we've been thinking about how to use a 1-hour slot to 
articulate the motivation for CONEX and lay out a sensible workplan for 
an eventual working group.

So, proposed:

1 hour slot Wed 3.10-4.10pm
We will finish promptly due to the plenary in the same room

* overview of conex
	- Leslie or Phil
	- only the high-level, architectural issue
* architectural overview of the problem
	- Mark H (tbc)
	- the problem of congestion
* traffic mgt problems - whole internet perspective
	- Mat Ford (tbc), overall perspective -  briefing panel at
	   last ietf
* Network perspective
	- Rich Woundy (tbc)
	- yes, ISPs think there's aproblem
	- current solutions have drawbacks, hence want conex
* Lay out the CONEX proposed approach (charter)
	- Phil or Leslie
* 20-30 mins discussion
	- how to structure?
	- hum on charter again?

I'll note that, if we don't think we can achieve what we need to in the 
one hour slot, we (collectively) may seriously need to consider 
scramming the BoF for Anaheim, and review whether we can take it up 
again later in Maastricht, if we can be scheduled better.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:02:54 +0200

Hi Leslie, 

I have a slightly modified proposal. Let us not turn this into rocket
science. 

I would like to simplify the story a bit: 

* Briefly summarize the findings of data usage (there are a few papers
to talk about). 
  Figure out whether people agree that there is a problem. 
  
  [The chairs could give that presentation.] 

* Explain what the state the art is. 
  This has to include the work Comcast is done with their FairShare

  [I could imagine that Ric would be a perfect speaker.]

* Why is the state-of-the-art not sufficient? 
  The presentation would cover gaps in the existing solutions. 
  What are the desired properties of a system we would like to have.

  [Maybe an operator or an equipment vendor could provide some insight.]

Finally, leave enough time for discussion. I am sure that people have
interesting insight into the state of the art and what is wrong with it.
There are at least a couple of companies on this list that ship stuff to
operators while we speak (just not Conex).

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Leslie Daigle
>Sent: 08 March, 2010 01:51
>To: [email-masked]; Philip Eardley
>Subject: [re-ECN] Draft agenda, prep'ing for Anaheim (IETF77)
>
>
>Hi,
>
>That's partly because Phil & I have been working with Lars on 
>the scheduling problem:  we're currently scheduled into 2 
>approx 1 hour slots that are NOT back to back on Wednesday.  
>That's suboptimal at the best of times, but made worse by the 
>fact that the one we're advised will be the best shot at 
>getting RTG players into the room is the 2nd one.  We're 
>trying to find a way to take the (currently) first slot and 
>reschedule it for later in the week.  Options are few.  We may 
>just cancel that session.
>
>With all that -- we've been thinking about how to use a 1-hour 
>slot to articulate the motivation for CONEX and lay out a 
>sensible workplan for an eventual working group.
>
>So, proposed:
>
>I'll note that, if we don't think we can achieve what we need 
>to in the one hour slot, we (collectively) may seriously need 
>to consider scramming the BoF for Anaheim, and review whether 
>we can take it up again later in Maastricht, if we can be 
>scheduled better.
>
>Leslie.
>
>-- 
>
>                                 -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle 
>[email-masked]
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:21:22 -0500

Hi Hannes,

I think we're agreeing on the overall structure, except

1/ I've added some brief intro of what "it" is (otherwise we'll flail, 
again!)

2/ I'd like to leave enough time for discussion.  But, see the issue 
about scheduling -- we may have only 1 usable hour of meeting time, and 
our options will be to either run with that, or wait and see if we can 
get better scheduling in Maastricht.

To be clear -- I *do not* want to push this discussion off to Maastricht 
-- we had momentum in Hiroshima, and that doesn't last forever.  But, 
I'm pretty stymied by the inability to get more than 1 usable hour of 
meeting time.

Leslie.

--

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:18:34 +0100

Hi Leslie,

I agree with Hannes. I would like to see the agenda more focused. Up to now 
the agenda looks quite packed for an one hour slot and also quite similar to 
the agenda of the last bof (at least from my point of view). 
To have an intro what conex is (without any reference to re-ECN) is probably a 
good idea. But the first step before this might be to show up the problem and 
make everybody in the room understand the problem. 
Then I like the approach of showing current practice and where the gaps are. 
This (hopefully) will lead to a clear statement what the benefits/selling 
points of conex are. I would like to see a slide which says 1. enable CC like 
LEDBAT, 2. congestion accountability bt. ISPs, 3. enable ECN and so one at 
the end of the presentations to start the discussion. 

I think we should use this one our slot at least to keep conex in the 
discussion. But of course it is more challenging to keep focused on the main 
points. But this can also help to make the people understand some single 
aspects of congestion exposure without trying to map the protocol on the 
various deployment scenarios all the times.

BR,
Mirja

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart

web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
email: [email-masked]
tel: +49(0)711/685-67973
-------------------------------------------------------------------