On 23 Dec 2022, at 9:39, tom petch wrote:
On 22/12/2022 19:49, Martin Duke wrote:
Re: The working group description. Sorry, I screwed this up and totally
forgot that the message would go out to ietf-announce. It was written for
the many transport area people that have been following the discussion at
tsv-area@xxxxxxxx and elsewhere. For the record, if approved, CONGestion
RESponse and Signaling would revise the requirements to standardize
congestion control and accept proposals for new standards-track congestion
control work, but we're several steps from it becoming a WG.I follow TSVWG and can see no sign of this in the e-mail archive. Ah my mistake, there was in November!
Meanwhile, how will this WG relate to ICCRG?
ICCRG is also in the process of rechartering, and Martin and I have been coordinating, and I’ve been speaking regularly with the ICCRG chairs, to ensure the two groups are complementary.
The proposed new ICCRG charter highlights its research focus (“enhance our understanding of Internet congestion control and to support conceptual innovation”) while being clear that the “IETF is the appropriate venue for deployment-oriented documents concerning interoperability or standardization of implementation”.
New congestion control research should go to ICCRG. As the ideas mature and demonstrate their utility, and need to be more formally documented to ensure interoperability, then the proposed CONGRESS charter allows work to move into IETF as experimental, and eventually standards track. Both the ICCRG and CONGRESS charters recognise that close coordination will be needed.
Colin
