Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis

Lars Eggert <> Mon, 21 February 2022 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DF23A1129; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 06:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPTFx_wGd5vD; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 06:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DA6F3A1121; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 06:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:897b:a2e4:e787:3438]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B586D1D242D; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:52:14 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1645455134; bh=hZj5QQ6bHv+zJ2jqYr/0tz45VkG6qlzI45CFjdM2K5I=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=i4F2OCy+s2OtppjZWtkedhqEV6EYyeusqIe2KHFj3frAgsa5rQ14bj4FGk8gzF/cI bFQH5FXzBDDPDyiK6lwVyadH2g6ceSPPm1rAtcYifelgx1ryj4VHcDMCdZVcC4uXi7 fTW7H71Eckqh+ODeY3/mctkeCIxO8L7cy/hplI3c=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_42D0908D-B566-4B53-9416-3140786226F0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.\))
From: Lars Eggert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:52:13 +0200
Cc: Markku Kojo <>, " Extensions" <>, tcpm-chairs <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
X-MailScanner-ID: B586D1D242D.A29CE
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:52:38 -0000


first, as an editor (but not wearing other hats) I do object against reclassifying the document as Experimental or Informational, esp. this late in the process.

CUBIC is not a new CC proposal. It's been ubiquitously deployed on the Internet for many years. All major TCP stacks use it by default. Given that, I don't see how the IESG statement on "Experimental Specification of New Congestion Control Algorithms" applies here.

(As an aside, that statement was specifically written when CUBIC, Compound and Hamilton were all jostling for RFC publication. The community converged on CUBIC in the meantime.)

CUBIC *is* the default CC mechanism used on the Internet and in other IP networks. It should be published on the standards track.

Second, this is the second time that an individual raised a long list of issues after the WGLC has ended. We did try to work through all the issues that were raised after the first WGLC, but the individual often failed to participate in the discussion in a timely manner. I now see at least several of those same issues re-raised by the same individual. Before going down the same path a second time, I would actually ask the WG to confirm there is consensus that the raised issues are valid (and if they are valid, commit to contributing to a resolution in a timely manner.)