IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Wed, 24 February 2021 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 BDEE63A1BFF for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:20:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 N6rRKQngxAfN for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 D918A3A1BF2 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:a548:cb36:fecb:8dea] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:a548:cb36:fecb:8dea]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6661A60030E; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:20:36 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1614201636; bh=XlHF7OJvgIHb8dW9dWbVozmLcMGtN4bQM5CFo/QMwV0=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=We7taVlTjAeT//VBL5XzfI4Edsu9n8hva7rGCW5YlOK5O6j77CuFh4+cSmB1XO3mv HcRdQCRvrdixrJCOxDFXelCkSgHhWZtp5kMq2k4SaQfdocj74PGr4/Ko/nTwe65bId J8kuToHTFs1YTUjQmd5HIL8Pslz2LK3V3Bz5T2/k=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <995E2207-A731-4C75-A2D2-21088AB8B4D7@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B03251DA-4684-4C71-86BD-50A5EDC2A399"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:20:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <03d53edab59b43db8fdacb1449395f2b@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
To: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <161398377991.29967.7361793221575196028@ietfa.amsl.com> <91381C80-C49D-47F4-BA59-776625089A0D@eggert.org> <8AE4FBCD-70D4-41B8-8ED0-F65FD7A454C1@eggert.org> <a2333446f4b64de4b0847f98ce9e9b8e@hs-esslingen.de> <3B032C7A-6C01-4AF7-94A2-C8AD9D08DDDB@eggert.org> <03d53edab59b43db8fdacb1449395f2b@hs-esslingen.de>
X-MailScanner-ID: 6661A60030E.A0213
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/ERC_Hgj-dk5H7QlcW-D-UTHmi3M>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:20:53 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-2-24, at 22:27, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> wrote:
> In other related cases, TCPM has decided during WG adoption to run a joint WGLC with TSVWG. We could decide to do something similarly in this case, e.g., a joint WGLC with the QUIC WG. That is something that would probably have to be agreed upon in the TCPM adoption call. But I am unsure; the expertise may be in the TCPM community anyway... Please feel free to chime in...

we certainly can, there are no downsides IMO. I'd be surprised if we saw significant feedback that we'd otherwise not see though.

> The new congestion control text in 793bis probably helps here. Maybe the wording in 793bis is just sufficient. But I haven't looked at the details. I guess a lot of old text was written under the assumption that there is *one* standard congestion control algorithm only. Unlike earlier CC schemes, 8312bis on standards track changes that. Now we have at leas two. It would be better to understand the implications early.

I think the text in 793bis is fine as-is. If we're still making changes to that, we could add some text about CUBIC being a specific suitable alternative, but I see no strong reason to argue for that.

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email