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

+1

On 4/29/2015 8:52 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> +1 for informational.
> 
> neal
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
>> I vote for informational, unless the WG consensus recommends cubic as
>> standard congestion control.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm still in support, on standards track.. From my point of view, the definitions in [4] don't quite match here (but I would probably be content with informational, if something really limits submission as standards track).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>   Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
>>>> (Michael)
>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 10:54
>>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-
>>>> 01
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> During IETF 91 [1] and on the list there has been strong support for WG
>>>> adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic [2]. It seems consensus in TCPM to
>>>> adopt this document.
>>>>
>>>> In order to move forward, the chairs seek for additional community
>>>> guidance regarding the intended status:
>>>>
>>>> a) Proposed standard
>>>>
>>>> b) Experimental
>>>>
>>>> c) Informational
>>>>
>>>> During IETF 91, there was strong support for Proposed Standard [1]. Yet,
>>>> given the running code and the potential evolution of congestion control
>>>> algorithms in future, the chairs want to ensure that there is strong
>>>> consensus in TCPM on the intended status. Also, we would like to handle
>>>> this question consistently among potential other alternative congestion
>>>> control algorithms.
>>>>
>>>> Additional information regarding the RFC status can be found in [3], and
>>>> there is also an IESG statement on the difference between Experimental and
>>>> Informational [4].
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know any feedback on the WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-
>>>> tcpm-cubic-01 and specifically the intended status until May 8.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tcpm
>>>>
>>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
>>>>
>>>> [2] RFC 2026, Section 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2
>>>>
>>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>