Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Wed, 24 February 2021 18:47 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 9DA253A19B1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:47:56 -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 lBYQerXBXkDd for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:47:54 -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 80CE43A19B0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:47:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD8B25A16; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:47:52 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1614192472; bh=BI2zutXjFK5RClzxPX1aanX+qFRdaXLazufLpOLR3xE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=H5PxR63bi9jsRVQeHHXQSP3x4i5ztz/x/g/SYp4bbL3m8I/VtXtCQ0r7YWHhcMwSM DLcJJOvA6YKuRZmx08cPLdIibJO4USwut7wT/A2UpZUVEYoKSlM4EeEPKl6+Fq9kri YSBEr/n3WRP8bEPMOonaSd5DLYQVafIbunjERU1E=
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 OT1oVSKHXENS; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:47:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8201.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:47:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8201.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:47:50 +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 15.01.2176.004; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 19:47:50 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXCrFUu0V1xwQ27U2fZ1so0oykn6pnntLw
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 18:47:50 +0000
Message-ID: <a2333446f4b64de4b0847f98ce9e9b8e@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <161398377991.29967.7361793221575196028@ietfa.amsl.com> <91381C80-C49D-47F4-BA59-776625089A0D@eggert.org> <8AE4FBCD-70D4-41B8-8ED0-F65FD7A454C1@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <8AE4FBCD-70D4-41B8-8ED0-F65FD7A454C1@eggert.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01D70AE5.EE01E890"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/rlPQjt22Y8qpLMJ0OOkvNGKmves>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 18:47:57 -0000

Hi Lars,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:31 PM
> To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for
> draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis-
> 02.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-2-22, at 10:54, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
> > We'd like to ask the WG to determine if this is ready for adoption.
>
> would a WG chair please acknowledge the request and let us know whether an
> adoption call will be done?

The chairs will get back - obviously. However, the DelACK principle should not 
be a big surprise ;-)

Until the DelACK timer expires, three foods for thought:

1/ Version -02 was submitted 2 days ago and at least I *always* read drafts 
entirely before any formal action. A large number of drafts was submitted in 
the last days as well, i.e., my reading list is not empty. And at least I do 
have a day job, too.

2/ The TCPM chairs live in different time zones and usually sync before 
decisions. The RTT may be 12h+X.

3/ I am not sure whether we have to seriously discuss *whether* to adopt a 
widely implemented specification. But there could be some questions on the 
*how*. For instance, would ICCRG have to be in the loop? How about use beyond 
TCP, e.g., would a syncing with the QUIC WG make sense (you may actually have 
a better understanding on that than me)? And are there any TCP RFCs that 
assume that only a single standard congestion control exist and that would 
perhaps have to be updated? Maybe the TCPM chairs have to do some homework 
that cannot be completed easily within 2 days?

Michael


PS: As individual contributor, I obviously support adoption.