Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis)

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi folks,

Thanks for the feedback. I also exchanged opinions with several folks via
private e-mails.
Based on them, I am thinking we can probably separate the discussions about
how to address
the concerns that require further evaluations, such as publishing a doc,
additional experiments, etc.
This may take time, but I believe it won't block the publication of the bis
draft.

Also, it seems to me that we're converging to publish the bis draft as a PS.
I am currently hoping we can make a decision at the next WG meeting.
If you have some concerns on it, please send your thoughts to the ML or
speak up at the meeting.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:06 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We've been discussing how to proceed 8312bis draft, but I think we still
> haven't settled yet.
> In my understanding, there seems to be the following options so far.
> if you have some thoughts on them or you have other options for this,
> please share.
> BTW, please note that this discussion might affect our future drafts
> because we want to apply the same bar for all standard docs as much as
> possible.
>
> 1: Publish the draft as a non-standard doc
>     a: publish as an informational doc
>
>     b: publish as an experimental doc
>         * we might need to describe what experiments are expected.
>
> 2: Publish the draft as a PS doc
>     a: do additional experiments to make sure there's no concern as a PS
> doc.
>         * we will need to decide what kinds of experiments are required,
> what would be the expected results before the experiments.
>         * we need to delay the publication of the doc until the validation
> of the experiments has finished
>
>     b: publish an additional doc that describes the checking points on the
> doc (and other related docs) for long term analysis.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:43 PM Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> After some discussions among chairs, we decided to run the 2nd WGLC on
>> draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis in consideration of the importance of the draft.
>> We'll be grateful if you could send your feedback to the ML. The WGLC
>> runs until *Feb 11*.
>>
>> If interested, you can check in-depth past discussions in the following
>> URL.
>> https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/
>>
>> Thank you so much!
>> --
>> tcpm co-chairs
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:50 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this -06 version rolls in all the changes requested during (and after)
>>> WGLC ended.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to the chairs to decide if another WGLC is warranted or
>>> the document can progress as-is.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lars
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 2022-1-26, at 11:12, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>> > This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
>>> WG of the IETF.
>>> >
>>> >        Title           : CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks
>>> >        Authors         : Lisong Xu
>>> >                          Sangtae Ha
>>> >                          Injong Rhee
>>> >                          Vidhi Goel
>>> >                          Lars Eggert
>>> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06.txt
>>> >       Pages           : 35
>>> >       Date            : 2022-01-26
>>> >
>>> > Abstract:
>>> >   CUBIC is a standard TCP congestion control algorithm that uses a
>>> >   cubic function instead of a linear congestion window increase
>>> >   function to improve scalability and stability over fast and long-
>>> >   distance networks.  CUBIC has been adopted as the default TCP
>>> >   congestion control algorithm by the Linux, Windows, and Apple stacks.
>>> >
>>> >   This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include
>>> >   algorithmic improvements based on these implementations and recent
>>> >   academic work.  Based on the extensive deployment experience with
>>> >   CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track,
>>> >   obsoleting RFC 8312.  This also requires updating RFC 5681, to allow
>>> >   for CUBIC's occasionally more aggressive sending behavior.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis/
>>> >
>>> > There is also an HTML version available at:
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06.html
>>> >
>>> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org:
>>> :internet-drafts
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > tcpm mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>>