Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Fri, 18 February 2022 14:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 03FA03A118F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 hqUpHnpmF1PV for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 B76153A11A5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id t21so1771633qkg.6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LVMacv+AUrAJ4y/8xS3E9+jCZxqcG81/7KrFqWwR6tM=; b=EfZUJgJltq8ikNTKujshX9bKTqyRnSnl0Se/8yYmEu+tI1wI9gbKC4IjlLuwuHbbCh sNP4fciEiPDLkarIXGU2LArZZ+HsQpuGQb0CrL2bH2NQOVfd76OkdCvT+68a+Qjd6bOS uZbI+fMdLoANJ6Fkm7xWXpkOSgJI2jmHHn6Y3rRFiGhFT32HtRXfehoYEd3X0ScOcC0C f8eTVh1cMUnVffdPvQieN+bH21U4Z/IDELGT5lr9lFBE6i0+ke+A5t6Iby0er2rO+6Og YxWz7Rt9oDI79I5bHEmOvds4ZLo7m2QXlUnogMk6V54KtRjezjG24ll4l9J7KWwMaZrE fXpA==
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=LVMacv+AUrAJ4y/8xS3E9+jCZxqcG81/7KrFqWwR6tM=; b=enAvp7Q/STTRg2iP8dre6qXDCxAcEPcdnSdauZI299Ao5nHP94mLO1Wd84Ow9m6Rqy /igLzM0y6XR914UlzZFTquda8pPNDsHmyQq9GAk1yOWiqAA8RLUNLxh6eabL18Wt6lSE bMuzRBHjZFhJaQTz86KoKtihNOiYx66UsBqwULgUMgE/5WMLA0wq7laR6JAH8UpXajDc f/Puaahu80dZJn/MbvqYbn9ijp82Mne6y2CQzYLwKp/fGzRj0S1ZJAccIMHt6Wq7uOyh 447ebPV3XagBEu68RMBTI7tGRcikjxijBMyyqCNzDjmixvutSOenZgo9S79Ir6IhDAZI Q1iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331RhKVIRatkuY3ioqWyI9uKPFT59mX6DgqYfwmK2q9gEQXfM0i KudStUqr1UR0CaGJL4J1qTBm1WD5MJMlXOAeWDk17A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBBKDdq1brpdJgwuNQsCV0SjFluFunSHzPOxkxZHCLhtwSnN9vabi4xq4ifaQOE0xGTbjs+VNn0+VNsIXONBc=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6943:0:b0:5e9:6ed4:2295 with SMTP id e64-20020a376943000000b005e96ed42295mr4754530qkc.259.1645195603017; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164318837039.21788.17451980682651967578@ietfa.amsl.com> <EEA435EC-AAAC-4899-8E94-2D54EDE5F72E@eggert.org> <CAAK044S9HQXvfvgM6mBuvOWJPHtCaa6xo6CoP2r8Vq61tKaY5g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202120048000.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CAAK044SUv2pjPSi_9jitNdtTHtGR-DVhiEn77yCf8M6B=bgKwQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202171538190.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CADVnQymwCdm0NoD95SX8JpRXFok=qMygPrwaeTJ9z29dqH=Avw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202181031280.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202181031280.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:46:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CADVnQyn55Ki3CCw=mshFQ=PAoQyR6MOpgdOaDgaN+JBtfNA57Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markku Kojo <kojo=40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000081919e05d84bf3b0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/8Mwn7TjjrDMhBFEOYCO-xuPNEEo>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 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: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:52 -0000

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 5:26 AM Markku Kojo <kojo=
40cs.helsinki.fi@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Neal,
>
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
...

> > Hi Markku,
> >
> > Thanks for your careful argument above. Given your argument, in order to
> continue to make
> > constructive progress on rfc8312bis without blocking for new research
> and experimentation,
> > I would propose that we change rfc8312bis so that it remains
> "Informational" (like
> > RFC8312) rather than the "Standards Track" status currently listed at:
> >
> >   https://ntap.github.io/rfc8312bis/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis.html
> >
> > As far as I can tell, that would allow all of the valuable contributions
> in rfc8312bis to
> > carry forward and be published, while still respecting all of the
> considerations you
> > enumerated above, which center around concerns with calling CUBIC
> "standards track".
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
> Sure, that could be one possible path forward. In my opinion, publishing
> it as experimental would be more logical and would also provide an
> inherent path forward to PS once enough evidence has been gathered and wg
> considers it is mature enough to proceed.  I don't have a strong opinion
> on this. Either way, IMO, it would be important to clearly point out and
> discuss the areas that require more evaluation so that it encourages
> interested parties to focus their experimentation to those important
> areas.
>

Great. Slating rfc8312bis as "Experimental" sounds like a great solution to
me.

And I agree it would be great to "clearly point out and discuss the areas
that require more evaluation", for the reason you note. To speed forward
progress, would you like to propose a github pull request to add an
appendix that enumerates those areas?

thanks,
neal