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"?]

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Gorry,

8312bis is Standards Track.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:15 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
>
>