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

Hi Michael, Chairs,

First, I think the proposed change to the charter is a good one - especially in the light that there is a recent push to try and document what is currently deployed.

Second, for Cubic specifically there is a single reference to SCTP which indicates that cubic can also be applied to SCTP. However, other than this introductory mentioning, nothing specific is there. But if one builds a CC specific to either TCP or SCTP - which does NOT apply to the other protocol, a document should clearly state so and treated in the respective WG.

In the generic case - that is, CC which applies equally to SCTP and TCP, I think the current provision of having TCPM and ICCRG denting the algorithm out, and then when the time comes, having it in TCPM seems natural, not?

Best regards,
  Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Tuexen
> Sent: Dienstag, 27. Jänner 2015 11:32
> To: Scharf, Michael (Michael)
> Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Rechartering TCPM for alternative congestion control
> algorithms
> 
> > On 27 Jan 2015, at 11:21, Scharf, Michael (Michael)
> <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> 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.
>
>
> How would the usage of TCP based CCs in SCTP be handled? Would it be
> covered in the documents in TCPM? Would there additional documents be
> needed? If yes, would they go also to TCPM or to TSVWG? Just wondering...
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm