Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control algorithms

If somebody should have further thoughts on the suggested rechartering, it would be excellent to speak up NOW...

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
> (Michael)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:22 AM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control
> algorithms
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This e-mails asks for community feedback on a suggested small addon to
> the TCPM charter [1].
> 
> In the last TCPM meeting [2] there was strong support for adopting a
> document describing the CUBIC congestion control algorithm [3]. To the
> chairs, it is not entirely obvious whether this document, or possibly
> other similar documents, would indeed be in scope of the current TCPM
> charter. Given the importance of the TCP congestion control, we prefer
> a community consensus explicitly documented in the charter instead of
> ambiguity.
> 
> The current charter limits the scope of TCPM to "modest changes to the
> protocol, algorithms, and interfaces". It allows "incremental
> enhancements of TCP's standard congestion control" but explicitly
> mandates rechartering for fundamental changes [1]:
> 
> OLD:
> 
> TCPM also provides a venue for standardization of incremental
> enhancements of TCP's standard congestion control, but such changes
> may require additional review by the IRTF Congestion Control
> Research Group (ICCRG). Fundamental changes to TCP or its congestion
> control algorithms (e.g., departure from loss-based congestion
> control) will be handled by other working groups or will require
> rechartering.
> 
> We suggest to update this paragraph in the TCPM charter by an explicit
> statement that "TCPM may document alternative congestion control
> algorithms that are known to be widely deployed, and that are
> considered safe for large-scale deployment in the Internet":
> 
> NEW:
> 
> TCPM also provides a venue for standardization of incremental
> enhancements of TCP's standard congestion control. In addition,
> TCPM may document alternative congestion control algorithms
> that are known to be widely deployed, and that are considered
> safe for large-scale deployment in the Internet. Changes of algorithms
> may require additional review by the IRTF Congestion Control
> Research Group (ICCRG). Fundamental changes to TCP or its congestion
> control algorithms (e.g., departure from loss-based congestion
> control) will be handled by other working groups or will require
> rechartering.
> 
> In our reading, "TCP's standard congestion control" is currently
> defined by RFC 5681.
> 
> This e-mail and the suggested rechartering does not imply any adoption
> of one or more alternative congestion control algorithms.
> 
> Any feedback regarding this suggested rechartering would be very
> welcome. In particular, please let us know if there are any concerns
> with this proposal or if you have suggestions for a different wording.
> Please let us know any thoughts until Feb. 15, 2015.
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
> 
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm/charter/
> 
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tcpm
> 
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm