Subject: Re: [tcpm] Feedback on WG acceptance of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic-01

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:15:13 +0100

I support work on this topic.

I think that such a document should be maintained within TCPM.

Here are my thoughts:

- WG informational draft
It changes TCP, but there is quite a lot of understanding of how cubic
operates. It could document what is currently implemented, and I think
would be useful exactly in this form. My take is that I do not think it
really competes with any planned IETF work - but would introduce an
alternate CC.

A focus on correcting the text to reflect what is implemented could make
this a fast procedure. That would be a major selling point to me.

- EXP?
I think it could be published as EXP.

The classification at first seems odd, in that there may be more
operational deployment experience with CUBIC than many IETF specs.
However, at least it is more "aggressive" in CC than some IETF-defined
specs.

If the intent of EXP status was to flag this as not yet finally perfected
by IETF experience and to show that the IETF could in future improve this
further, then that would seem a reasonable position. (I'm not even saying
I know of a list of improvements to make).

- PS?
If the WG evaluation concludes that the evidence is good, then it could be
a PS, that would need a consensus call. That call is I suggest impossible
to make until we open the document up to detailed scrutiny and debate.

I can see merits in publishing as INFO asap.

Gorry (as an individual)

> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During IETF 91 [1] and on the list there has been strong support for WG
>> adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-cubic [2]. It seems consensus in TCPM
>> to adopt this document.
>>
>> In order to move forward, the chairs seek for additional community
>> guidance regarding the intended status:
>>
>> a) Proposed standard
>>
>> b) Experimental
>>
>> c) Informational
>>
>