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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

I disagree; TCP congestion control algorithms are also deployed in other 
transports, and thus this seems more appropriate for TSVWG.

Joe

On 1/27/2015 2:21 AM, Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>