Re: [tcpm] WGLC for Proportional Rate Reduction

Sorry for the long radio silence here.

The only reason to bother with standards track is if there is a need
to compel reluctant manufacturers to implement and deploy it.
Customers can then write in their requests for quotes specifications
such as "must support SACK (RFC 2018), and then suddenly the lack of
SACK support becomes a high priority issue for some large manufacture
who shall remain nameless.

Back in the old days (before 1990) RFC meant "request for comments"
and there was no such concept as "standards track". We wrote down our
ideas, and if they were valuable, they became part of the installed
base.   For PRR this has already come to pass for the installed base
that is most important to me.

If management at Apple or Microsoft think PRR isn't worth the effort,
then making PRR a standard will permit their customers to influence
their priorities.   Given the extent to which PRR is an across the
board win, I really don't think this is required.  (However, I could
change my mind if a TCP engineer at one of the above companies
indicate that they are getting pushback from their management.)

Finally there are some details in PRR that are effected by Laminar.  I
would rather not go to the effort of fixing the current draft to make
it a proper normative PS, but not totally correct.  (Hint: Yoshifumi
Nishida's "off by one" comment reflects the difference between pipe
and total_pipe).

So here is what I was planning to do:  Push out the current document
as experimental, and then after Laminar is further along, generate a
normative respecification using Laminar state variables (probably as
one section of a larger doc, but that remains TBD).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> wrote:
>
>> I wonder about the process issues related to changing the status at
>> this point.
>
> The process is that y'all say someone has suggested the status should be
> standards track and you want to know what the WG thinks of that.  This
> document has not left the WG.  I have not seen any declaration that it
> passed WGLC.  It is within this WG's purview to consider this question.
>
> allman
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>