Re: [tsvwg] What TCP to target in TCP-friendly [was:A word for "does not have a significantly negative impact on traffic using standard congestion control"?]

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 16/03/2021 09:39, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> in the cited response Bob proposes to define TCP Reno as the reference TCP all TCP-friendly protocols need to be compatible with. I had a quick look at what TCP CCs are actually in use, and according to wikipdia, all major operatig systems, Windows10 (since 1709, 2017), MacOs (since Yosemite, 2014), Linux (since 2.6.19, 2006) converged on CUBIC as the default TCP congestion control algorithm.
> Given that data, I propose to not enshrine YCP Reno's behavior as the current applicable reference, but instead TCP CUBIC.
> 	For the L4S drafts that does not change much, because the dualQ's unfairness towards non-L4S-CCs does not seem to care for the exact way a CC is NOT L4S,
<snip>
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian


This seems an editorial matter that we should simply get correct. The 
IETF has a PS specification for Reno. RFC 8312 is informational, but 
TCPM recently adopted draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00, targeting 
Informational status.

My own (personal) suggestion is that we use text that says a "CC 
specified in a standard's track RFC" and give refs to both Reno and 
Cubic as examples, although I'd be interested in others views also.

Gorry