Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis)

Neal Cardwell <> Mon, 28 February 2022 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE67B3A112A for <>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.608
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N3DtAXdBy2BJ for <>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944313A1129 for <>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e22so12668195qvf.9 for <>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:29:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OpWN07ZAXMwLgFgGfMs+VQOdcgJYmAv6AAvzwillocs=; b=jQsfZ3WNdzWBTVT/NDxB8GjmCcMqmv+/cSEboo3KOW4J0qe3lBu2MED006SuUlx+b/ NKVGVHrmlJY18G6qxbcsmFbed09f3qQF8sMHjFhnZLWqF+1RbEdSGWWNH2EhpYMfwMWY hzEuz77+w8QtuHQZwNAWOKTJp+urPmAh3J1iYMI+fsMYNZY1vp3tjWwMCXefS+CcjuE/ DpVpaSOxqQBOPMML51FXgqFPWwFxfg6V2/nwOFQoPKUeAHKv+KzW0XEpjzy0MnyluZUM JLdoA1Jc/zmB+jcsB0ie6hgbLfeDFpBHhsHwQ9tNy8/XVWc2wVRTV/o78M8sg3wot55n Vjfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OpWN07ZAXMwLgFgGfMs+VQOdcgJYmAv6AAvzwillocs=; b=jLHmVMICBF08RenHZ2U0POZMdTV7ercw8xmhw2wbzuaSgKJEa0sh9BUCjTWj5KeCz0 sdx8e2N/sVBFVFTIQbEoJEC3i2JCDYVKx4B9Z3sU0N7jO2uWC2OPLQXdTRC05WzE6jnv LpiE9u0HnBdA8//al2RnEi3C321G5FhXMA0BRtm4kKKWEqbqm2e75x+u0BsSZe3HVPXT Zz+03qdZLvnFwEKU1b5rxJ155fM2C4NUtJ/JJaQDUKinXM8C1/Q1nF7roSm0Zimja/a+ 6LqkwxzXf8JQ4EzbbDbNMJsqjb1dGYTOLwY8tWlfzAA/FQIzptfl6uwoNjC9WDuGHv7a BDHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mkULSo0YpZYL0xcs5W0b4uAWVA+0eXKigNTNG1t/VYHCPEEA2 9WPDIYOQbn/YUf5sE3NSK1J7IraGoWcX5IIlVrXf4g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIqR8woeQv2cjMNSr7VdEuvXCveykIhiyo4KGSfviBn897H1gcxDvVFiY9OVzGIrPEM+ZiVj/M1A6CoS4pzrM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:5c8:b0:2df:f3d4:e214 with SMTP id d8-20020a05622a05c800b002dff3d4e214mr9277499qtb.183.1646058583956; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:29:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Neal Cardwell <>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:29:28 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Cc: " Extensions" <>, tcpm-chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002db15305d914e1b9"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 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, 28 Feb 2022 14:29:49 -0000

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:07 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <>

> Hi,
> We've been discussing how to proceed 8312bis draft, but I think we still
> haven't settled yet.
> In my understanding, there seems to be the following options so far.
> if you have some thoughts on them or you have other options for this,
> please share.
> BTW, please note that this discussion might affect our future drafts
> because we want to apply the same bar for all standard docs as much as
> possible.
> 1: Publish the draft as a non-standard doc
>     a: publish as an informational doc
>     b: publish as an experimental doc
>         * we might need to describe what experiments are expected.
> 2: Publish the draft as a PS doc
>     a: do additional experiments to make sure there's no concern as a PS
> doc.
>         * we will need to decide what kinds of experiments are required,
> what would be the expected results before the experiments.
>         * we need to delay the publication of the doc until the validation
> of the experiments has finished
>     b: publish an additional doc that describes the checking points on the
> doc (and other related docs) for long term analysis.

I would argue for:

  (2) publish the 8312bis draft as a PS doc, and

  (2b) publish an additional doc that describes any aspects of CUBIC where
the community would like to see further experiments or improvements.

IMHO Michael Scharf made an excellent argument for PS status for CUBIC on
Feb 22 ( )
by simply quoting a definition of PS from RFC 7127:

   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices, has received significant community review, and
   appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard

   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
   prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the

   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
   at scale is gathered.

It seems clear, IMHO, that CUBIC meets those criteria for being named a PS.

best regards,