IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 27 January 2015 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F75D1A90A1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 9vXqsiabmUjC for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C513E1A909C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1YGEoz-00078H-Dd; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:41:21 +0100
Received: from [109.236.130.11] (helo=surfer-172-29-15-13-hotspot.s-bit.nl) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1YGEoy-0000lI-Ty; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:41:21 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16BCD62F@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:41:15 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <870745F5-397F-460B-AB57-16DE5D5AE5CA@ifi.uio.no>
References: <54C7BF65.7030104@mti-systems.com> <20150127170347.C09285ECB65@lawyers.icir.org> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16BCD62F@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 11 msgs/h 5 sum rcpts/h 22 sum msgs/h 9 total rcpts 25174 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: E85C79E760390ECF09B313DE6157099DE168A3A6
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 109.236.130.11 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 5 total 23 max/h 7 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/5uQhdTDTDRCrlcDu2fYbTHqKK9c>
Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:41:31 -0000

+1 for TCPM

> On 27. jan. 2015, at 18.23, Scharf, Michael (Michael) <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Either way, reviewing the draft is more important than which
>>> list's name it happens under, so there's no need to have a
>>> constitutional crisis over it.
>> 
>> Don't make easy things difficult.  Both directions have valid
>> arguments.  Someone should decide and we should work on difficult
>> things.
> 
> The proposed addon to the TCPM charter is explicitly limited to documenting TCP algorithms "known to be widely deployed". Getting feedback and reviews from TCP implementers is indeed the actual challenge in this case.
> 
> I believe (well, actually I hope) that implementers of major stacks indeed follow the TCPM list. In my opinion, we should not make it too complex for them to figure out what is done where in the IETF.
> 
> Michael
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email