IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 30 April 2015 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 31AFA1B2B74 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 9HOm4mMLK6ID for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78DBC1B2B83 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (pool-71-103-148-202.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.103.148.202]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3UETxow004764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55423C67.8020506@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:29:59 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <33E3613D-55E0-4213-BADD-0DFE7B5F8C17@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <33E3613D-55E0-4213-BADD-0DFE7B5F8C17@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: t3UETxow004764
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/P1C_MClTmCbguHVho4rNPiuX6h4>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
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 14:30:38 -0000


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email