Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Review comments on a careful read of the L4S ID (#11. Cubic)

From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT)

[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 14/05/2021 13:04, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> > Gorry, tsvwg,
> > See [BB]
> >
> > On 06/05/2021 07:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> >>
> >> =================================================================
> >> *11.Reference TCP Cubic in addition to TCP Reno*
> >> **
> >> This text:
> >> ?ClassicCongestion Control:A congestion control behaviour that can
> >> co-exist with standard TCP Reno [RFC5681] without causing
> >> significantly negative impact on its flow rate [RFC5033].?
> >> **
> >> ?This is one of a number of references to TCP Reno, which would be 
> >> enhanced by also referencing TCP Cubic to avoid criticisms that 
> >> comparison with TCP Reno is dated and limited.
> >> =================================================================
> >
> > [BB] For the record, as discussed in the tsvwg meeting, "standard TCP 
> > Reno" has already been modified (in two normative sentences) to:
> >
> > "...Classic congestion controls such as standard Reno..."

I know of:
	TCP Tahoe
	TCP Reno
	TCP New Remo

I do not know what:
	"standard Reno"
	"standard TCP Reno"
are.

RFC 5681 does not define any of these as terms.

> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> Gorry
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [email-masked]