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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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.)

Thanks,
Lars