Re: [tcpm] Proceeding CUBIC draft - thoughts and late follow-up

Joe Touch <> Wed, 22 June 2022 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCB4C14CF09; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 04:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bFCK-W0WFr-7; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 04:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45CCBC157B45; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 04:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QGkJtVpxpZZykN1UjTrVjEld+10FHjmWgS2LLXBc94U=; b=MaFJbQgEHoDqHIsjZkEUrBtyzB XDIivbhRGGQQ3wkdjPDD0lzCaptOwx27oPfXMcxLpr3MfR4XekSz10X17CT6NmWID7Q7ZG2svmi0w QFj7ruIfi4GZjmIWUXXNrgOkkwz3td+8hESAiFsN1B+UUl1bHrpo3LVKdoddbnkw0E8MprcaNOBeS 33Sw7Ox59kPfN+i9Ck2ryAGRL6FGq7FdFWlgn/Ks2Nzufe75NORxVM1/RaNopc7qB0mAFf2XFRUWG 0usvy8j/SEJF+wIYkrYEILKPbq/HEutjp6tt06/qsuhHITJ89AhYf98OlHrkrnJ+9x//8kEPEwh5b D1OQN2Xw==;
Received: from ([]:52121 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <>) id 1o3yc5-006lDn-0z; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:33:42 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 07:33:34 -0400
Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <>, Martin Duke <>, Vidhi Goel <>, Markku Kojo <>, " Extensions" <>, tcpm-chairs <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Christian Huitema <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (19F77)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Proceeding CUBIC draft - thoughts and late follow-up
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:33:47 -0000

> On Jun 22, 2022, at 1:27 AM, Christian Huitema <> wrote:
> What I can tell is what is *lost* by not recognizing CUBIC as a standard: the credibility of the IETF.

But if it becomes a without due examination of impact, the IETF becomes a rubberstamping organization.

If that’s what’s being asked here, it should be published as informational with warnings as to why it is not publishable as a standard. 

> It would be yet another coat for painting it as hanging to obsolete old things rather than acknowledging how the Internet actually works.

I agree, in a sense. It would recognize that the way the Internet actually “works” is to deploy new features operationally and assume that if failures cannot be directly attributed, they must not exist. I.e., cheat if you can get away with it.

I’m not saying they do here, but also that they have not yet been shown absent either.