IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F191A079D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ell_qHYWoHPQ for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x229.google.com (mail-vn0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16AE1A1AD3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbf1 with SMTP id f1so5063034vnb.5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hsn6Iq2GZdSOuUaL1RUpwevpetbwbDmhrkSVhKTfDrI=; b=qml7FzbZ6atKhle531tUeger4FmhHAzMBBm1zQa7rd1pnZ3k+q99QFWxoZ18D1WnHm L76Ak2jo6gyE1T2KsdNOVQ3SMdddRmJQOqxt4ZCBrnYD/4sZOty8KQ/mxu2oyjg/zV40 WdYn7eP/cg7A+YnadZvPwsqsos8XkpogB5CP97nlbeur+TdM/JCnYO1kLOIUeukPviCE PRX+azpNSlc2JlWyFJCmGkOiU1uAlXw2d6C+LBNBtVhRmLYWEZkDFkoVZR5Q/GpcEzUf o0BrAi0OLYdSVN6Dg7FDvchJeQ1ILqXBECGs1ALcpFdCx9/KTfty1C565Pl5PWv6rW1x EoLA==
X-Received: by 10.52.24.113 with SMTP id t17mr1895956vdf.89.1430342713030; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from still.local (184-19-93-177.drr03.clbg.wv.frontiernet.net. [184.19.93.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id em10sm383795vdc.22.2015.04.29.14.25.12 for <tcpm@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: tcpm@ietf.org
references: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <CAK6E8=c+qHMFeuTVMnVK0+vR_E1q-bWBhf_BzcyjxKOxBP+ppA@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQy=Vrt+6Mj7mAFSgyHayEaCFeYDeNQq3XiVp+yboK9ZV2g@mail.gmail.com> <55413329.5060002@isi.edu>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
message-id: <55414C38.4030009@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:25:12 -0400
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:39.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/39.0a2
mime-version: 1.0
in-reply-to: <55413329.5060002@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/es0DRjz3QmvSFf3bG_4wI8aQUtc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:25:16 -0000

+1 on informational.

tim


On 4/29/15 3:38 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> +1
>
> On 4/29/2015 8:52 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>> +1 for informational.
>>
>> neal
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
>>> I vote for informational, unless the WG consensus recommends cubic as
>>> standard congestion control.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm still in support, on standards track.. From my point of view, the definitions in [4] don't quite match here (but I would probably be content with informational, if something really limits submission as standards track).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>    Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael
>>>>> (Michael)
>>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 10:54
>>>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-
>>>>> 01
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> During IETF 91 [1] and on the list there has been strong support for WG
>>>>> adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic [2]. It seems consensus in TCPM to
>>>>> adopt this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to move forward, the chairs seek for additional community
>>>>> guidance regarding the intended status:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Proposed standard
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Experimental
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Informational
>>>>>
>>>>> During IETF 91, there was strong support for Proposed Standard [1]. Yet,
>>>>> given the running code and the potential evolution of congestion control
>>>>> algorithms in future, the chairs want to ensure that there is strong
>>>>> consensus in TCPM on the intended status. Also, we would like to handle
>>>>> this question consistently among potential other alternative congestion
>>>>> control algorithms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional information regarding the RFC status can be found in [3], and
>>>>> there is also an IESG statement on the difference between Experimental and
>>>>> Informational [4].
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know any feedback on the WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-
>>>>> tcpm-cubic-01 and specifically the intended status until May 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-tcpm
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] RFC 2026, Section 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tcpm mailing list
>>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> tcpm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email