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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 27 January 2015 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 C7E4B1A88A9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:10:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 MK7QOPcGrF0m for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E64C1A887E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (pool-71-103-148-202.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.103.148.202]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0RH8BED021239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54C7C5FA.8070601@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:08:10 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mallman@icir.org, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
References: <20150127170347.C09285ECB65@lawyers.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150127170347.C09285ECB65@lawyers.icir.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/7GNgT_ncVB6ihdvSNdoy7WvCXfI>
Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.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 17:10:01 -0000

+1.

I was making the point that this should be moved to TSVWG instead of 
TCPM, *especially* because of past presentations on new algorithms.

I've made my point. This isn't a "crisis", it's a viewpoint.

The IESG needs to make a decision after others weigh in too.

Joe

On 1/27/2015 9:03 AM, Mark Allman 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.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> allman
>
>
>