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

IMO a courtesy notice to QUIC, TSVWG, and ICCRG should be sufficient to
alert all potentially interested parties to come to TCPM if they want to
mix it up on this subject.

Obviously we should also periodically update these groups as the document
evolves.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:54 AM Rodney W. Grimes <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
wrote:

> Hello Lars, WG members,
>         One comment inline below marked [RWG]
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-2-24, at 20:47, Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > understood. I did make the same request when -01 was posted already,
> hence I was wondering if it had fallen through the cracks.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > They could, but I don't know if they have to. IIRC we run new CC schemes
> by them for review, but this isn't really one of those.
> >
> > > 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)?
> >
> > We have https://github.com/NTAP/rfc8312bis/issues/45 open for that. It
> not clear at this time whether any additional text is needed to explain
> more about how QUIC would use CUBIC, a bunch of changes were made already
> to this purpose.
> >
> > > And are there any TCP RFCs that
> > > assume that only a single standard congestion control exist and that
> would
> > > perhaps have to be updated?
> >
> > I'm sure there are a bunch of TCP specs that only cite NewReno, but
> that's probably OK? I'm not sure if finding and updating them just to say
> "you may also use CUBIC" is all that worthwhile. Also, we didn't do this
> for 8312 (or any other experimental/informational CC scheme) so it's not
> clear why we'd do so for 8312bis.
>
>  [RWG] I think the difference here that may warrant at least some updates
> to some RFC's is that CUBIC is moving to a PS.  So any existing STD or PS
> that is affected by the fact there is now a new CC at PS level should be
> updated to reflect that availability.
>
> Regards,
> Rod
>
> > Thanks,
> > Lars
> >
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
> --
> Rod Grimes
> rgrimes@freebsd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>