Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis
"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Tue, 22 February 2022 10:03 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733023A0C38; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:03:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 cL62eJxbMhBQ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ADE73A0C52; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 02:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B42A25A13; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:03:39 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1645524219; bh=rhIx6CO4g2itifNGy+B2D6RWyHA6gAm2cC45+GcJONQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nZ95eJSFCNtAzjJF94exnpP9q4Ky0uGraa0CZ21nXZSksGfAxUX910iq0fHGYYe9j Kj7e28lu5GWje3p4R9fLN8DTQSS8gFtjYDORJ9TnWBWYTrytsVAK7OQ0QmfKZ0k2Qq Id/YaMyHDIqwcndslX9Hv+u4S2YpwPVMJKhdEQnc=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWsZoVglDOaO; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:03:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:03:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.18; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:03:38 +0100
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.018; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:03:38 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Markku Kojo <kojo@cs.helsinki.fi>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis
Thread-Index: AQHYFz9qjcNEwGI41kmv6ftBUhB7tqyPZSAAgAZtPoCAAgdFgIABLUIAgAAdDACABLxoAIAARZ2AgAFKj+A=
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:03:38 +0000
Message-ID: <56bc8db8ee5d438699eafd60650453ba@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <164318837039.21788.17451980682651967578@ietfa.amsl.com> <EEA435EC-AAAC-4899-8E94-2D54EDE5F72E@eggert.org> <CAAK044S9HQXvfvgM6mBuvOWJPHtCaa6xo6CoP2r8Vq61tKaY5g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202120048000.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CAAK044SUv2pjPSi_9jitNdtTHtGR-DVhiEn77yCf8M6B=bgKwQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202171538190.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CAAK044TwWJq0PgVSeHU7LfEwacPuix8KHqrBGXB+TTrVaFh0-Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2202181052240.4019@hp8x-60.cs.helsinki.fi> <CAAK044RR6HTHKOgaoh4hkssXugSHMc+dV_2Ru3xLPsLaYRR0aA@mail.gmail.com> <718D13E5-D813-455B-8541-2396EA1F5CA8@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <718D13E5-D813-455B-8541-2396EA1F5CA8@eggert.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/k47hlSsx1lRupy5LRTJ5pQ6LrDE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:03:49 -0000
Hi all, As always in a discussion about EXP vs. PS, I suggest having a look at the definition of Proposed Standard, e.g., in RFC 7127: A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known design choices, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation. The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet. A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it. Proposed Standards are of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet. However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified, when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies at scale is gathered. As an individual contributor to TCP and congestion control research, I believe that a CUBIC specification can meet these requirements. Maybe the "no known technical omissions with respect to the requirements placed upon it" could benefit from some text inside rfc8312bis to make clear what the requirements are, i.e., what the standard tries to achieve (and what not). But, at least to me, the current section 5 already covers that. I am not against adding some more text on the scope of rfc8312bis, but I'll certainly not insist in that. Also, another repetition of what I wrote already in the past: In my observation, TCPM is extremely conservative when it comes to standards track documents, as compared to other WGs in the IETF (also outside TSV, e.g., in RTG or OPS). Probably that is not a bug, but a feature in a standardization body. And at least I have not tried to change that thinking as chair in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, if a document can meet the bar for a PS, I believe TCPM should try to go for a PS. Michael (not wearing any hat) > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 3:52 PM > To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> > Cc: Markku Kojo <kojo@cs.helsinki.fi>; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions > <tcpm@ietf.org>; tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis > > Hi, > > first, as an editor (but not wearing other hats) I do object against reclassifying > the document as Experimental or Informational, esp. this late in the process. > > CUBIC is not a new CC proposal. It's been ubiquitously deployed on the > Internet for many years. All major TCP stacks use it by default. Given that, I > don't see how the IESG statement on "Experimental Specification of New > Congestion Control Algorithms" applies here. > > (As an aside, that statement was specifically written when CUBIC, Compound > and Hamilton were all jostling for RFC publication. The community converged > on CUBIC in the meantime.) > > CUBIC *is* the default CC mechanism used on the Internet and in other IP > networks. It should be published on the standards track. > > Second, this is the second time that an individual raised a long list of issues > after the WGLC has ended. We did try to work through all the issues that > were raised after the first WGLC, but the individual often failed to participate > in the discussion in a timely manner. I now see at least several of those same > issues re-raised by the same individual. Before going down the same path a > second time, I would actually ask the WG to confirm there is consensus that > the raised issues are valid (and if they are valid, commit to contributing to a > resolution in a timely manner.) > > Thanks, > Lars
- [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06.… internet-drafts
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Vidhi Goel
- [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Scharf, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis touch@strayalpha.com
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Bob Briscoe
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Lars Eggert
- [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC for… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Vidhi Goel
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Martin Duke
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] Proceeding 8312bis draft (Re: 2nd WGLC… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo
- Re: [tcpm] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis Markku Kojo