Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis)
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 02 March 2022 20:12 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5853A3A0C45; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 12:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kPXMqayHym4y; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 12:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9373A0B45; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 12:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id q9so3195240vsg.2; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:12:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SVx2A/VOmdB/r470RZbivUReJPu0CW0UUbBtyM2kp9w=; b=ibpi9IQiX/VEs1ItXu9W/JEoGsaCoFrlCdp1SE5nfxGGhw3MEldnREcpBnHePe0zXy gMz6WkLUB0AnPzgNDvdj0UoWxIWmztJeW9+rFKrXh3sla3K2yUvh2/Jhm71TJn4NUuYF H3dSi0os19AV8p2KM+cpkGyDmjbMtwLdMwSiXmgtyIwiSN2skGrk4IOeeW/fbP3mf/xb fHpsCdfpSKZvEOYu89euXuWfk72g5UbGsCv0GfFVToi8z6CK/zNhq8hupCMFgYuW4ndV fK/QBrhd9/usoJHRvznhroRpyWOipWmw/nnI/CkLjNl10FsNap//heTStcSjm6kMHCUE Iy9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SVx2A/VOmdB/r470RZbivUReJPu0CW0UUbBtyM2kp9w=; b=VR6Rpmaci13NccUwGmi9+LvDOAQFJRdjpNdJMvGN9VmbbsVCt4VCNGjdXPWz+QVtOd ZddxNPv8Z9xmQv22k3MvuAf3WJkMo9dd8j9onBfie7zyRuOxH3Mvkrjqi0yQBIMuq9jc 3AN/e9f/ADO94Z1MvYEMid6BoJUJkppLheRHJ9FF3Vpb8ECfM9qX+GmDoxf94vS4rze+ qCgYzoHgEOUbtldAp/fe5uLjiMynUzkWtID9btKlwuRgdXwX44gk9f8tyfuhxvg/bX7n PlPHaumtdf+JbP1DEs0BvrE9BjNPeZpAyaUFS2ZtOnDVbIiQmccWYHQXQLG3yT6zHQjJ qH2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OKqta+d4bijS7ptOspRVtW4G/wa66UOQ8XSS+UNeK2kpz5Ot5 dS0zGUpcncpypakWTEXo2hXls9M7PmedVtIyuI4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZoMG5oOrqZyUkHrZ7R2ECt6hNDaCF+a2iIJ8Lqhd1Qg/SDs6DMfeCG++QE9yef4e6h8cmx6Foz/mGSjHLcWQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:5f81:0:b0:31f:d7cc:3591 with SMTP id t123-20020a675f81000000b0031fd7cc3591mr1744761vsb.32.1646251965936; Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:12:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164318837039.21788.17451980682651967578@ietfa.amsl.com> <EEA435EC-AAAC-4899-8E94-2D54EDE5F72E@eggert.org> <CAAK044S9HQXvfvgM6mBuvOWJPHtCaa6xo6CoP2r8Vq61tKaY5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAK044Q5Lv175T6RcVp+XKEfqZ=Z_+TfjJ5Q9NzzA6wVerMkSw@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQykqf5zU-or7VbjcaU8ARTv1AOt0zR+xVquBG8ck5SqyRA@mail.gmail.com> <C0D01F76-5519-49AF-8AEE-93A04E723F86@apple.com> <07F62E25-2F21-4267-83A0-FDD40D855A8E@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <07F62E25-2F21-4267-83A0-FDD40D855A8E@ericsson.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:12:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSRsSzBBfGmdwS_jpDwii1k-0Ud+WyGy8LV2LRmx1n6UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a3f82205d941e713"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/5j1OJfa8sPNcCZN24Bp7X1L9TjQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 20:12:52 -0000
Wearing no hats, I also support publication as PS. Quite aside from legalistic arguments about what's in certain RFCs, it's self-evident that Cubic has much wider deployment experience than nearly anything else that we've granted Proposed Standard status. On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:55 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind= 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > In case that helps, +1 to publish as PS. We already discussed this in > length when we made the decision to go for PS. Cubic is widely deployed > (and didn’t break the Internet) and publishing as PS reflects this reality. > > > > I think it also is important to document known limitation or short-comings > of Cubic such that future congestion control research can take them into > account accordingly. However, I don’t believe people are planning to > explicitly do further experimentation with Cubic (rather than developing > new schemes instead). > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > *From: *tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Vidhi Goel <vidhi_goel= > 40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Monday, 28. February 2022 at 20:24 > *To: *Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc: *"tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs < > tcpm-chairs@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for > draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis) > > > > I would argue for: > > > > (2) publish the 8312bis draft as a PS doc, and > > > > (2b) publish an additional doc that describes any aspects of CUBIC where > the community would like to see further experiments or improvements. > > > > IMHO Michael Scharf made an excellent argument for PS status for CUBIC on > Feb 22 ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/k47hlSsx1lRupy5LRTJ5pQ6LrDE/ ) > by simply quoting a definition of PS from RFC 7127: > > > > > > I agree with Neal’s suggestion based on PS status definition from the > above RFC. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Vidhi > > > > On Feb 28, 2022, at 6:29 AM, Neal Cardwell < > ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:07 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> > 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. > > > > I would argue for: > > > > (2) publish the 8312bis draft as a PS doc, and > > > > (2b) publish an additional doc that describes any aspects of CUBIC where > the community would like to see further experiments or improvements. > > > > IMHO Michael Scharf made an excellent argument for PS status for CUBIC on > Feb 22 ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/k47hlSsx1lRupy5LRTJ5pQ6LrDE/ ) > by simply quoting a definition of PS from RFC 7127: > > > > A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known > > design choices, has received significant community review, and > > appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. > > > > Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is > > required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed > > Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable and will > > usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard > > designation. > > > > The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience > > prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that > > materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies > > behavior that may have significant operational impact on the > > Internet. > > > > A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with > > respect to the requirements placed upon it. Proposed Standards are > > of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet. > > However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may > > be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified, > > when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies > > at scale is gathered. > > > > It seems clear, IMHO, that CUBIC meets those criteria for being named a PS. > > > > best regards, > > neal > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >
- [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06.… internet-drafts
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Vidhi Goel
- [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis touch@strayalpha.com
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Martin Duke
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo