IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.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 497411B2BD0 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hzV6VlQL9cuK for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x231.google.com (mail-vn0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::231]) (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 77BDC1B2BCA for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbg7 with SMTP id g7so7390797vnb.10 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N8Xeifwu8/IZrKxpY25mny4O5mHlh+k+GYqs0aBfcRQ=; b=uLXUiEKv8vLa/hVp96rSTIJ3mCj3hVmaROzV+hhasD0BIQPBCIQfef/uAQz28kMRMk ZwwWqBG96cEJcO6TPJBgF7dIzsK22NCMD0d/jOPA28VI1DZWgPWxd0nczteEoCJa/b/B r6nOlPpaFOf0VYpaiRgeaOp87OuN0JK0A/WfKf6H0FIPPiIKqw7JhgtpmYYS6/5KKxyy hII+JN/8Em6h3S7J1yr+aBuQ8CybpaPmwDRYJQm2S5VFwYvzo/88l9dfbtWHMXA7o8zK 1Tl2WirYkJOhPzaK3IyptO2J7ZzTy2X3BmQ3jKxneQti2FheNFuOA42/Rh5+FqRYw4/s UwTA==
X-Received: by 10.52.176.103 with SMTP id ch7mr8142716vdc.68.1430404477621; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from still.local (184-19-93-177.drr03.clbg.wv.frontiernet.net. [184.19.93.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ms8sm3608662vdb.21.2015.04.30.07.34.36 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
references: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <33E3613D-55E0-4213-BADD-0DFE7B5F8C17@netapp.com> <55423C67.8020506@isi.edu>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
message-id: <55423D7C.8010302@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:34:36 -0400
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:39.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/39.0a2
mime-version: 1.0
in-reply-to: <55423C67.8020506@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/HpyzCvx5WXzU3HZji3TVib9Ibgk>
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:34:40 -0000

Experimental is also an option, if the WG is not sure on deployment.

tim


On 4/30/15 10:29 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 4/30/2015 12:06 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> On 2015-4-29, at 14:32, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
>>> I'm still in support, on standards track.
>>
>> Me too, given that this has been the default CC on Linux for years
>> now. What's the reason for Informational; that this was done outside of
>> the IETF and therefore doesn't deserve PS? That seems a bit dogmatic
>> given the amount of real world experience.
>
> PS would imply that the CUBIC community was coming to the IETF and
> willing to accept "rough consensus", which might result in changes.
>
> Informational is appropriate for de-facto standards that are NOT being
> taken to the IETF for that consensus process.
>
> Given the history of this alg, Information is the best that can happen
> unless we're opening it up for changes.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email