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

Yes, experimental is another option. RFC 3649 (Highspeed TCP) is Experimental.

But I'd assume there is much more operational deployment experience with CUBIC than with RFC 3649, i.e., it is actually not an apply-to-apple comparison.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Wicinski
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:35 PM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-
> cubic-01
> 
> 
> Experimental is also an option, if the WG is not sure on deployment.
> 
> tim
> 
> 
> On 4/30/15 10:29 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/30/2015 12:06 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> >> On 2015-4-29, at 14:32, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I'm still in support, on standards track.
> >>
> >> Me too, given that this has been the default CC on Linux for years
> >> now. What's the reason for Informational; that this was done outside
> of
> >> the IETF and therefore doesn't deserve PS? That seems a bit dogmatic
> >> given the amount of real world experience.
> >
> > PS would imply that the CUBIC community was coming to the IETF and
> > willing to accept "rough consensus", which might result in changes.
> >
> > Informational is appropriate for de-facto standards that are NOT
> being
> > taken to the IETF for that consensus process.
> >
> > Given the history of this alg, Information is the best that can
> happen
> > unless we're opening it up for changes.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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