IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.com>
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 A70F51A8AE9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 E0ilUu49qgtf for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx141.netapp.com (mx141.netapp.com [216.240.21.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67FA51A8BB4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,671,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="39973993"
Received: from hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.36]) by mx141-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2015 05:32:21 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX05-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) by hioexcmbx03-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:32:20 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX05-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::29f7:3e3f:78c5:a0bc%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:32:21 -0700
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
Thread-Index: AdB82dct7bOB/OJdSd689asNJWANrgFnlOVg
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:32:20 +0000
Message-ID: <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/BokvYNbkUo9MCLyk2PThcMUTW78>
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 12:32:58 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email