Re: [tcpm] alternate IW proposal

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 11/15/2010 11:45 AM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
> - IRTF versus IETF :- When IW=10 was brought up I assumed that it
> sounded like IRTF work. Why should we keep asking such questions if the
> charter clearly spells out : "what is construed as a minor change to
> TCP"?

I didn't read what happened this way.

AFAIR, we only said "the CCRG ought to look at this too", not that the 
IRTF was the place it should happen once it was reviewed.

As to the hurdle, I think it ought to be high for this, perhaps higher 
than for other changes we've discussed. Some of the TCPM changes don't 
affect anyone except those who use them; this one affects congestion 
everywhere, potentially. I'm not uncomfortable with a fairly high bar on 
such things.

Joe