Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2021-2-24, at 20:47, Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 1/ Version -02 was submitted 2 days ago and at least I *always* read drafts
> entirely before any formal action. A large number of drafts was submitted in
> the last days as well, i.e., my reading list is not empty. And at least I do
> have a day job, too.

understood. I did make the same request when -01 was posted already, hence I was wondering if it had fallen through the cracks.

> 3/ I am not sure whether we have to seriously discuss *whether* to adopt a
> widely implemented specification. But there could be some questions on the
> *how*. For instance, would ICCRG have to be in the loop?

They could, but I don't know if they have to. IIRC we run new CC schemes by them for review, but this isn't really one of those.

> How about use beyond
> TCP, e.g., would a syncing with the QUIC WG make sense (you may actually have
> a better understanding on that than me)?

We have https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/45 open for that. It not clear at this time whether any additional text is needed to explain more about how QUIC would use CUBIC, a bunch of changes were made already to this purpose.

> And are there any TCP RFCs that
> assume that only a single standard congestion control exist and that would
> perhaps have to be updated?

I'm sure there are a bunch of TCP specs that only cite NewReno, but that's probably OK? I'm not sure if finding and updating them just to say "you may also use CUBIC" is all that worthwhile. Also, we didn't do this for 8312 (or any other experimental/informational CC scheme) so it's not clear why we'd do so for 8312bis.

Thanks,
Lars