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

["Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[e-mail]>]

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