Subject: [tsv-area] IETF-68 draft minutes online

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:38:44 +0300

Hi,

draft minutes of the TSVAREA meeting at IETF-68 are online at http:// 
www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/tsvarea.txt

Gorry Fairhurst was the minute taker - thank you!

Everyone, please check if these are accurate, especially if you have  
commented at the mike.

Lars

---

From: Douglas Leith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:58:57 +0100

Was there a decision re the process for ICCRG/TSV consideration of  
new TCP congestion control RFCs ?   This doesn't seem to be  
explicitly stated in the minutes.

Earlier discussions at pfldnet etc proposed something along the lines  
that RFCs ought to receive a report from the ICCRG before  
consideration by IETF.  However, my understanding is that the IETF  
needed to discuss this proposed change in procedure and decide what  
it wanted to do.

Personally, I would echo Bob Briscoe's concern of putting two hurdles  
in place (ICCRG then IETF) in what is already a demanding and slow  
process.

Doug

On 30 Mar 2007, at 08:38, Lars Eggert wrote:

> Hi,
>
> draft minutes of the TSVAREA meeting at IETF-68 are online at  
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/tsvarea.txt
>
> Everyone, please check if these are accurate, especially if you  
> have commented at the mike.
>
> Lars
>
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:04:45 +0300

> explicitly stated in the minutes.

Good catch. We did hum after the presentation, and the hum was  
strongly in favor of the proposed approach. That needs to go in.

> Earlier discussions at pfldnet etc proposed something along the  
> lines that RFCs ought to receive a report from the ICCRG before  

That was what the presentation focused on, and at least among the  
people in the room there was strong consensus for it.

> Personally, I would echo Bob Briscoe's concern of putting two  
> hurdles in place (ICCRG then IETF) in what is already a demanding  
> and slow process.

Noted. You know I disagree with you on this one - HighSpeed TCP and  
QuickStart took a long time to vet in the IETF in my opinion  
partially because there was no clear statement on their safeness for  
experimentation and it needed to be developed within the IETF. Doing  
this in the ICCRG - where there is likely more congestion control  
clue - may be faster.

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:08:14 +0300

> strongly in favor of the proposed approach. That needs to go in.

I should add that I'm currently writing down this approach in a more  
descriptive and easily referenced format. Once I have it, we'll do a  
consensus call on this list, to verify that the hum in Prague  
accurately captured community consensus.

Lars

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:53:26 +0100

Lars, Gorry,

Minutes look ok (thanks Gorry) - couple of nits below.

1/ WAS:  Bob Briscoe: Improving utilization is important in deployed networks.

BETTER:  Bob Briscoe: Background to slide saying goal of PCN isn't to get 
last percent of utilisation from capacity: PCN-based admission control 
itself allows far superior utilisation of capacity than say admission 
control solely at edges of a Diffserv domain.

2/ Typo in URL:

http://support.mircosoft.com/kb/934430 ->
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/934430

Cheers

Bob

>Everyone, please check if these are accurate, especially if you have

____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, <[email-masked]>      Networks Research Centre, BT Research
B54/77 Adastral Park,Martlesham Heath,Ipswich,IP5 3RE,UK.    +44 1473 645196

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:13:40 +0300

> Minutes look ok (thanks Gorry) - couple of nits below.

Fixed - thanks!

Lars