IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.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 E36861A854D for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 cnqc__ZeExA6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (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 649AC1A8769 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so110230496igb.0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3752ZtaVYcz+mVJrYjgW0KBK0pueRXDv8CXce/vhuNg=; b=T2BXFhAEkmblGwpPz9cmQL0ckveDASu6CzIN2tTIZsQxfho2Fgg1/8vCzF8aWElhcq fY85o5oDQNroMZcUpmu3Ag+wdLs1s1GTbO/WXn3Q2v8Q+f9Unm12dzx7GiOtH+IXCTZ5 bNBBSFIyZuAqnvPntWXRqXYPOcefRYiEO/WNPH+CFSC2SkqyrI3s444m8OgBGKjPeRub mnZdtqG6OixqRvp1OndjBBC5+DLQY+4u4TSHm7FlCW+AuvQmu1+1s7ZLFsmmPODJXyFT uRAop8G3DeG6Qh+tXcNVzAVTuSo5IP8WMJXvpR1fbtnHb94nVpFiO7AefVfhdUMZs57f iDdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3752ZtaVYcz+mVJrYjgW0KBK0pueRXDv8CXce/vhuNg=; b=B3mEJ6k1iwKYMc8jomc4UJCxcWrXntX8XOLATRV8H0f7d3G3x0SCpiZ2vIKlNIlQ1F 0XrtqLVA0X/H9paL3wF5+/j7oo7xWAaOJ3SNQUTwFmSvXAfg1i9chb5UHZqV4PgreCJ+ +ja+vOMi57FfFWmTSG3nErn3r4OqbPDPTvdrnaL6KYy+/y5quoLL+nQ3p1pjwe6jlCg0 VwzLLuf/LCBWZSxUtroHYqhmGLwYqFeh7PodjzaPNallJw1+eOh27SiYLrzq2Su7v9pz YLiC2hI6gGBBRBt/Um0xjoFz0Wdb66X1Emkl3HGmxeULDmwmCABYcNW5gOD08enfNH4N S+EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+rX/jGm4nKeC6b0b7lutHEzho0MkJEJzSJoIkxasd3yWIBku762I2NlYrnWX+Brpj0/DV
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.63.76 with SMTP id xd12mr4348185icb.11.1430322721704; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.132.95 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=c+qHMFeuTVMnVK0+vR_E1q-bWBhf_BzcyjxKOxBP+ppA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D16C939DA@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <f66ed0bbaeeb41faa8b41748969a4032@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <CAK6E8=c+qHMFeuTVMnVK0+vR_E1q-bWBhf_BzcyjxKOxBP+ppA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:52:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=Vrt+6Mj7mAFSgyHayEaCFeYDeNQq3XiVp+yboK9ZV2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/pf7-nfipo5TUSrTr-s8nfaixg3Q>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
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 15:52:11 -0000

+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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email