IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] TCP Prague's RFC 5033 guidelines status?

"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Sun, 10 November 2019 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3A81201B7; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:59:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jz0aVCWMeX5Z; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 303CB1200CE; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAAKv7uB031019; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:58:51 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=qISos6uVOf7CPF7CpJ8Gorr8eiLiBpQ4tNCOZY+7Suw=; b=CD2RLN1DqrGKbNzbMyP7tYqE9F8k1GAcFjl6xfT7DchdcZqoFhuWTYhAwUXjP/6/eFK3 oWR8a3LQpRXqnPO7/jyaEMnfcbw16UhHt5pNtub8A936gge+DQJzuUB2izUvWAZtCzhL rrvdmPtNj0B1Sv9NantijUKbOy2VsNFnFZblliYcogyIBg7fAokgHmLFDDQ97TkzEaDi 5+kkuGuDPxXSX+XUwK6XMMFGMulNqNF1xp5fSdL4wI133vkzF/iQ3EhrCc7lVXOhNFys XNTdUA9twLy1yaUVyKMvgC3gQuhd3I/TL6cInx88OCtHZLBiCW7SKGL0zYcN4slH6Y/4 gQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [96.6.114.122] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2w5p78xj7v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:58:50 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xAAKl4X3002004; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:58:50 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.118]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2w5snxyb85-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:58:50 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.122) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:58:49 -0600
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.122]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.122]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:58:48 -0600
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: "draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch@ietf.org>
CC: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TCP Prague's RFC 5033 guidelines status?
Thread-Index: AQHVmAmmMIm2SSJvw06YTZ/1Ay/LjA==
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:58:48 +0000
Message-ID: <BB91598E-C319-4F78-B660-A77ACD0F19DE@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.80.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1A12A1F3A28CFD4D94F2523BD47628A9@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-10_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911100208
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-10_06:2019-11-08,2019-11-10 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911100210
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/rFw_5YHwjcfFApt5HbLk01pBZ2c>
Subject: [tsvwg] TCP Prague's RFC 5033 guidelines status?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:59:01 -0000

Hi l4s-arch authors,

In a side discussion, Pete mentioned the RFC 5033 guidelines list for
new congestion controls, and looking through the items in Section 3, I
wasn't sure whether or not they were all addressed in the L4S drafts and
references:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5033#section-3

Would it be possible to add a section that goes through the points from
RFC 5033 section 3 and provides pointers to the text and/or research
results you know of that addresses each of them?

I think it would be very helpful for the review of the proposal to have
those listed out instead of trying to find them by digging through the
documents and references.

I guess it would also be OK to provide such a map on the mailing list,
but I'll suggest that I think it would be more helpful if there's a way
to include it as a section in one of the drafts.

(And if people agree this is a useful addition, should we open a new
issue to track it?)

Thanks and regards,
Jake

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email