Subject: [tcpm] TCPM rechartering to add MPTCP maintenance

From: "Scharf, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:25:02 +0000

Hi all,

As TCPM shall in future maintain MPTCP, we propose a small addition to the TCPM charter.

The chairs and the responsible ADs believe that MPTCP maintenance and minor MPTCP enhancements would formally be possible with the current TCPM charter text, as MPTCP is a TCP extension. Yet, our preference is to state explicitly that MPTCP maintenance is in scope of TCPM, in particular also to make this transparent to people outside the IETF.

Therefore, we propose the following small addition to the current TCPM charter (the addition is flagged by <new></new> and the current TCPM charter is fully copied as reference):

<charter>
TCP is currently the Internet's predominant transport protocol. TCPM
is the working group within the IETF that handles small TCP changes,
i.e., minor extensions to TCP algorithms and protocol mechanisms.
The TCPM WG serves several purposes: 

* The WG mostly focuses on maintenance issues (e.g., bug fixes) and
modest changes to the protocol, algorithms, and interfaces that
maintain TCP's utility.

* The WG is a venue for moving current TCP specifications along the
standards track (as community energy is available for such efforts). 

<new>
* The WG maintains Multipath TCP (MPTCP) and is a home for minor
MPTCP enhancements including updates to the existing multipath
congestion control.
</new>

* The focus of the working group is TCP. In cases where small
changes are directly applicable to other transports (e.g., SCTP or
DCCP), the mappings to other transports may be specified alongside
that for TCP, but other significant additions and changes to other
transports are not in scope.

TCPM also provides a venue for standardization of incremental
enhancements of TCP's standard congestion control. In addition,
TCPM may document alternative TCP congestion control algorithms
that are known to be widely deployed, and that are considered
safe for large-scale deployment in the Internet. Changes of algorithms
may require additional review by the IRTF Congestion Control
Research Group (ICCRG). Fundamental changes to TCP or its congestion
control algorithms (e.g., departure from loss-based congestion
control) will be handled by other working groups or will require
rechartering.

TCP's congestion control algorithms are the model followed by
alternate transports (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), which are standardized in
other working groups, such as the Transport Area WG (tsvwg). In the
past, the IETF has worked on several documents about algorithms that
are specified for multiple protocols (e.g., TCP and SCTP) in the
same document. Which WG shepherds such documents will be determined
on a case-by-case basis. In any case, the TCPM WG will remain in
close contact with other relevant WGs working on these protocols to
ensure openness and stringent review from all angles.

New TCPM milestones that fall within the scope specified within the
charter can be added after consensus on acceptance in the working
group and approval by the responsible Area Director.
</charter>

We do not plan any other changes to the TCPM charter, i.e., any MPTCP-related work would follow the process explained in the last sentence of the charter.

Even if this is only one additional sentence, any re-chartering requires IESG approval. The current plan is to get IESG approval for the new TCPM charter prior to IETF 107. Obviously, the first step is to reach consensus inside TCPM.

I add the MPTCP WG list in CC. Yet, any discussion of the TCPM charter should take place at [email-masked].

Please review the charter proposal, and please let us know any comments ASAP.

Best regards

Michael

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:38:50 +0000

See below:

> MPTCP enhancements including updates to the existing multipath
I think this seems appropriate. (Deciding on new work will require the 
same judgement as other protocol work for non-TCP transports and so the 
new Charter text works for me.)
> alternate

[GF] can we change /alternate/ to /other IETF/ ... I always though that 
word was a slightly odd choice to me.

> transports (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), which are standardized in
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
Gorry

---

From: "Scharf, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:12:33 +0000

[tcpm only]

> word was a slightly odd choice to me.

For what it is worth, according to datatracker the TCPM charter has used the term "alternate transports" at least since 2004... Anyway, yes, I agree that we could replace that word.

Michael