Ballot for charter-ietf-congress
Summary: Has 2 BLOCKs. Has enough positions to pass once BLOCK positions are resolved.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I see a lot of bullet points in the charter, but none of that matches up to the milestones, which isn't a real milestone as it is 1 entry predicting when everything should be completed. Can this be split up better? I think the name "congress" is very misleading and will cause needless confusion with being about venue / meeting issues. Can this still be changed?
Indeed, the world has changed since TCP is no more *the* protocol, so this work is welcome. Thanks for addressing one of my previous BLOCK issue about the rechartering. alas, the other previous BLOCK point still stands: it is about the mismatch of the unique deliverable of this WG with the very broad scope ? The current charter appears to be more suited for a directorate (doing reviews of WG documents) than for a WG (publishing documents).
Thank you for partly addressing my previous comment about `empirical evidence of safety` as "safety" was rather vague (now it is clear). "Empirical" is still rather vague, should it rather be "experimental" ?
I agree with Paul's point about the lack of correlation between the in-scope work and the (one) milestone. Is the expectation that proposals for other work will come up if the WG is chartered?
# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-congress-00-00 CC @ekline ## Comments ### P1 * I'm not sure the charter needs to capture this comment/tone about prior era research groups. Perhaps just trim it down a bit, maybe: "and proposals seldom emerged having passed Internet-scale testing" or something? ### P7/Bullet 1 * What is the basis for requiring AD approval for application of an algorithm to a restricted deployment environment? ### _general_ * Are detection and adaption to other changes in path characteristics that might appear like congestion also be in scope? I'm thinking of networks of wireless links where the topology changes that can result in changes in latency/RTT, packet reordering, and of course packet drops that are handover-related but not necessary congestion-related (though I think might perhaps appear as congestion?). (See also 18m:45s of the presentation video at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3286062.3286075)
The PR LGTM. Thanks!
I concur with several of the BLOCK positions, mainly about the name and the apparent open-ended nature of the charter. There's only one milestone, but I get the feeling after reading the whole thing that there might be many more.
I'll broadly supportive of chartering this WG, and doing the congestion work in a central place makes sense to me. I found this charter hard to read on my tablet, so would suggest formatting it to a slightly shorter line width, 72 cols maybe? I would suggest deleting "CONGRESS will not remain open simply because “in case” further work comes along."
** The scoping text is broad and seems to redundantly reiterated that. (a) “CONGRESS is authorized to adopt work relating to Congestion Control and AQM without rechartering.” (b) Later there is a list of items that are “specifically in scope”. Practically, I don’t find that they narrow anything. Given the statements of: ==[ snip ]== * Algorithms mature enough for standardization. CONGRESS may consider not only the open Internet, but also algorithms focused on other deployment models (e.g. datacenters and other controlled environments, reduced resource deployments such as IoT, and so on). * Algorithms proposed for Experimental status ==[ snip ]== It seems almost any congestions control is in scope. The subsequent list items of “multi-path congestions control, etc.” seems like specific items that were already permitted by the first two bullets. Per (a), most of what was referenced in (b) would have been in scope. ** I applaud the sentiment of “CONGRESS will not remain open simply because ‘in case’ further work comes along.” What is the mechanism that will be used to realize this principle? As noted above, the charter scope is extremely broad, however, the milestones don’t reflect a large backlog of work that needs to get done. ** Editorial. The paragraph starting with “CONGRESS is chartered to conduct …” has several unneeded line breaks.