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 <> Tue, 16 March 2021 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0DF3A091C for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 05:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDbdOTIVMb3U for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 05:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDEF3A098A for <>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 05:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GF-MBP-2.lan ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C1A21B0022B; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:14:40 +0000 (GMT)
To: Sebastian Moeller <>, Bob Briscoe <>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:14:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <>
Subject: 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"?]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:14:51 -0000

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,
> 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.