IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Wed, 29 April 2015 20:38 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 32F141A039D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
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 JlxJv9tu36o2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 165FD1A0196 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1YnYkk-0005K8-Fa for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:38:42 +0200
Received: from 173.179.249.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.249.179.173] helo=[192.168.0.114]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1YnYkk-0003Ue-1u for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:38:42 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <55413329.5060002@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:38:41 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EC2CDDCE-B0A2-4095-B0D8-23ED295D9073@ifi.uio.no>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <CAK6E8=c+qHMFeuTVMnVK0+vR_E1q-bWBhf_BzcyjxKOxBP+ppA@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQy=Vrt+6Mj7mAFSgyHayEaCFeYDeNQq3XiVp+yboK9ZV2g@mail.gmail.com> <55413329.5060002@isi.edu>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 9 msgs/h 5 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 5 total rcpts 28134 max rcpts/h 44 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 44FF4A8B3BD02F41A7A09114B546053290BA504B
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 62.249.179.173 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 5 total 743 max/h 13 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/BmAQOkkEn1zHM1i43oMQxGJVJvk>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:38:49 -0000

+1

> On 29. apr. 2015, at 21.38, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On 4/29/2015 8:52 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>> +1 for informational.
>> 
>> neal
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
>>> I vote for informational, unless the WG consensus recommends cubic as
>>> standard congestion control.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm still in support, on standards track.. From my point of view, the definitions in [4] don't quite match here (but I would probably be content with informational, if something really limits submission as standards track).
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>  Richard
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
>>>>> (Michael)
>>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 10:54
>>>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-
>>>>> 01
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> During IETF 91 [1] and on the list there has been strong support for WG
>>>>> adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic [2]. It seems consensus in TCPM to
>>>>> adopt this document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In order to move forward, the chairs seek for additional community
>>>>> guidance regarding the intended status:
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) Proposed standard
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) Experimental
>>>>> 
>>>>> c) Informational
>>>>> 
>>>>> During IETF 91, there was strong support for Proposed Standard [1]. Yet,
>>>>> given the running code and the potential evolution of congestion control
>>>>> algorithms in future, the chairs want to ensure that there is strong
>>>>> consensus in TCPM on the intended status. Also, we would like to handle
>>>>> this question consistently among potential other alternative congestion
>>>>> control algorithms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Additional information regarding the RFC status can be found in [3], and
>>>>> there is also an IESG statement on the difference between Experimental and
>>>>> Informational [4].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please let us know any feedback on the WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-
>>>>> tcpm-cubic-01 and specifically the intended status until May 8.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tcpm
>>>>> 
>>>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
>>>>> 
>>>>> [2] RFC 2026, Section 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2
>>>>> 
>>>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 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 mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email