IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms

"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.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 97A841A1A7D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:23:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 Lx4Pni1wCe14 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (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 C76071A1A30 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 884D7C5A4C035; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:23:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t0RHNalR022616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:23:36 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.165]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:23:37 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms
Thread-Index: AQHQOlM2Gqm9ZQ2Vt0yESAJ0K253GZzUMwwQ
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:23:35 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16BCD62F@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <54C7BF65.7030104@mti-systems.com> <20150127170347.C09285ECB65@lawyers.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150127170347.C09285ECB65@lawyers.icir.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
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/Fru4U7G8HjgziSReN25FjwgtYww>
Cc: "tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms
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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:23:45 -0000

> > Either way, reviewing the draft is more important than which
> > list's name it happens under, so there's no need to have a
> > constitutional crisis over it.
> 
> Don't make easy things difficult.  Both directions have valid
> arguments.  Someone should decide and we should work on difficult
> things.

The proposed addon to the TCPM charter is explicitly limited to documenting TCP algorithms "known to be widely deployed". Getting feedback and reviews from TCP implementers is indeed the actual challenge in this case.

I believe (well, actually I hope) that implementers of major stacks indeed follow the TCPM list. In my opinion, we should not make it too complex for them to figure out what is done where in the IETF.

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email