Subject: [tcpm] ICCRG experimental CC reviews

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:51 -0500

The ICCRG has been attempting to prepare a "safety review" of Compound
TCP as input to TCPM in deciding how to handle the Compound TCP I-D.
When we finish this, the ICCRG is also going to do the same for CUBIC
and the CUBIC I-D, and other experimental congestion control proposals
that come to TCPM.

In Philadelphia, we discovered that we didn't know what level of review
TCPM desired from the ICCRG.  We have been looking at Compound TCP since
last summer, but this review incorporates several independent efforts at
implementation, experimentation, and simulation (i.e. not just document
review).  The delay involved in this may be greater than what people
bringing congestion control proposals to the IETF would like.  It can be
difficult enough to get them to bring the proposals here in the first
place; as history shows, they can put code into their operating systems
and widely deploy without the help of the IETF.

My question for TCPM is: Would TCPM participants rather have a "short"
review from the ICCRG, on the order of 4 months, that considers the I-D
in question and any immediately-available supporting materials, OR
would TCPM rather have a "long" review from the ICCRG, perhaps a year,
that has a very thorough investigation behind it.  Or something else
completely.  The short review may have to hedge its conclusions with
a list of unknowns, but it would specifically identify these, whereas
the long review may have less unknowns.  As an example, in the Compound
TCP review, we have an open question about how it is affected in
wireless
environments.

As a TCPM participant myself, I personally prefer the "short" review to
keep proposals to TCPM from spending more time in ICCRG than they do in
TCPM :).
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm