Re: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 25 June 2010 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD13C3A69D3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLN7t+q1d7TA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A400E3A686A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.212.178.160] (160.sub-75-212-178.myvzw.com [75.212.178.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5PK8JcP002334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C250CB3.50609@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:08:19 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jerry Chu <hkchu@google.com>
References: <AANLkTilUogjoOVRKiFSQdfTt2xdSZEPQBVvcABbCs6Rc@mail.gmail.com> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB4810873BDA@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <AANLkTilM7RXZ0Mh9k3es5ZbBzHWXrreUz9BFgbL8l-Rv@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilM7RXZ0Mh9k3es5ZbBzHWXrreUz9BFgbL8l-Rv@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCFD7238730A6247CAD619C54"
X-MailScanner-ID: o5PK8JcP002334
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0000

FWIW, it might actually be more useful to have this viewed by ICCRG, and have
them post to TCPM with their view of these proposed changes.

Joe

Jerry Chu wrote:
> Hi Wes,
> 
> How about other proposals that are still waiting to get on the WG agenda?
> (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hkchu-tcpm-initcwnd-00.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis-00.txt)
> 
> Since our "Increasing TCP's Initial Window" proposal in Anaheim, we've done
> more experiments and have a lot more data to present. We've also been hard
> pressed to make forward progress. I was hoping to meet you and many others
> f2f in Maastricht to discuss our data. It looks like the alternative
> is ICCRG. (A request for presentation slots has been sent to ICCRG.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jerry
> 
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC
> AEROSPACE CORP] <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Jerry Chu
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:57 PM
>>> To: tcpm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [tcpm] no meeting at Maastricht?
>>>
>>> Just saw the draft agenda but did not see tcpm? Are we not meeting at
>>> Maastricht?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>> Hi Jerry, we originally submitted a request for a meeting slot, but
>> withdrew it in the last couple days after looking at a few things,
>> including:
>>
>> - much of our work is in the phase where it's nearing completion
>> - among the active WG documents, tcp-security is the main one that
>>  could use face-time, but the editor can't make it to Maastricht
>> - availability of webex to IETF WGs seemed like a good way to make
>>  progress on tcp-security and other potential new documents
>> - we had seen reports that the agenda slots were heavily over-requested
>>  for Maastricht
>> - both WG chairs were having difficulty scheduling Maastricht travel
>>
>> So, with the combination of those factors, we decided it would be
>> more beneficial to setup a webex to work on tcp-security, at least,
>> and use the mailing list to close out any issues on the other documents.
>> I hope that makes sense; I had planned on communicating it to the list
>> in the next couple days, but your question pushed it out today :).
>>
>> --
>> Wes Eddy
>> MTI Systems
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm