IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 AE5F61B2CE5 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 VZACbPVyx6Dw for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx142.netapp.com (mx142.netapp.com [216.240.21.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0B841B2D04 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,677,1422950400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="38219138"
Received: from hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.38]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2015 07:56:00 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:56:00 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::f07f:691d:89d:53b7%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:55:59 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
Thread-Index: AQHQgniiqREnpx5A60G89rjx0bjeqZ1lmLqAgACAfwCAAAK2AA==
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:55:59 +0000
Message-ID: <E99C69E2-0AAD-4D9C-9A8D-63F325A434E3@netapp.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <33E3613D-55E0-4213-BADD-0DFE7B5F8C17@netapp.com> <9dc614eb40cd416185a8f5cb1cd0f3ce@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <9dc614eb40cd416185a8f5cb1cd0f3ce@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C25BF77-8E6E-4CE0-AD5A-D8DADEF6AA91"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/RppTZqLSQvtgCIwNLcFISHjT440>
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 15:03:12 -0000

On 2015-4-30, at 16:46, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
> correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the draft has been released by the original authors for community discussion and feedback, right?

It is submitted with the regular ID boilerplate, and if adopted, I guess the WG could do whatever it wanted with the content.

> So if the mechanism can be improved, any feedback to that effect could be added even if it means that the draft does no longer match what is in Linux (iOS, BSD)...

That would be one outcome, but I'm not sure how useful it would be, because then we'd again have a document that documents something, but that something is not what the actual code does.

There are a bunch of Linux committers on this list, so I guess if TCPM had good improvements to make, there is a chance they would make it back into the code, but it's not automatic.

Do we think that the WG can make substantial improvements to the algorithm? (Not the ID text, the algorithm.) I don't know. I guess we are in a better position to answer this once the document has captured what the current code is actually doing, which at the moment it doesn't yet.

So maybe we table this discussion for a while?

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email