IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus-03

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Fri, 15 May 2020 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 5A2D33A08C7; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 ysV4v8maWwGw; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1AE3A08C4; Fri, 15 May 2020 03:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D57A25A12; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:38:49 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1589539129; bh=VZEoKA4b0ZAzGIqAD7XniI59SRRbcTSiKtJQN5fy/vE=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZpiD6ji34wL9Dc1csj6rxvCAK67V+j0FGZMYbBd++acb/zOFyrDuO3b3WqwClwOJp VGqvtlByGd23jz/0+uLLQleoaiWH66BUmaL5UYfueKYua+DcT9tMV/XaKJe3Ddd47g L6MQnxFOUsZg3WDZG9fW+6WsFHtY7fPnNA2YW4NI=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JQaglfUeTE1q; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:38:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:38:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.209]) by rznt8102.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::f977:d5e6:6b09:56ac%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:38:44 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
CC: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, "draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus@ietf.org" <draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus-03
Thread-Index: AQHWKW8mKi2UyKe+o0yMHkHCu2sjfainW8OAgAA0X4CAAAMUAIABKyEAgAAyJIA=
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 10:38:44 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2DBDEAFF@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <D963CFA8-5851-40EE-BA70-2522BB99C1C1@fh-muenster.de> <B581E2C0-D2EF-4AAE-951B-27A404A6427F@icir.org> <CADVnQykh+Srg++Yp2-c5yh8ikVHgBQvxDWeLpOp=7B3XV1Vz6g@mail.gmail.com> <172F0536-8FEE-4F7E-AADA-19CF30077B8F@icir.org> <D24BE77A-86CA-4093-B471-0F9A63FA24DD@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D24BE77A-86CA-4093-B471-0F9A63FA24DD@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.48.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/A-8KW7VhGwUhhJPBc0GexvNgF1U>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus-03
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, 15 May 2020 10:38:56 -0000

A draft could also have an informative appendix or a short non-normative section with background information.

For what it is worth, I don't know how many readers of any existing RFC even know that the IETF has proceedings. If people are expected to find data in the IETF proceedings, a draft should probably include references, IMHO.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 11:15 AM
> To: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>; Neal Cardwell
> <ncardwell@google.com>
> Cc: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>; tcpm IETF list
> <tcpm@ietf.org>; draft-balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-
> balasubramanian-tcpm-hystartplusplus-03
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> this work has been presented multiple time in tcpm which a bunch of
> measurement numbers of real deployments. I really don't think this material
> should end up in the draft. The draft provides the specification of the
> mechanism (preferably as comprehensive and short as possible). The IETF
> proceedings provide the record for results and background information.
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> On 14.05.20, 17:25, "tcpm on behalf of Mark Allman" <tcpm-
> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mallman@icir.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Neal-
> 
>     Based on your note it seems that it should be straightforward to add
>     solid motivation in the document.  (And, hopefully your high-level
>     notions of finding that it works well can readily be turned into
>     objective statements.)  So, why don't we just do that?
> 
>     > However, I would urge that these concerns be addressed in future
>     > editorial revisions,
> 
>     My issue is that this is **not** editorial.  There is simply nothing
>     in the document that suggests it is a good idea.  That fact is
>     completely independent of whether it is or is not a good idea.  It
>     just means there is no basis to judge given in the document.  We
>     should expect some explanation of why this is reasonable before the
>     WG is asked to adopt and work on something.  IMHO.
> 
>     allman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email