Subject: [tcpm] Increasing TCP's Initial Congestion Window

From: Nandita Dukkipati <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:52:40 -0700

Hi, All,

We are giving a follow-up presentation on Increasing TCP's Initial Window at
ICCRG. Please find the slides at this link:
http://code.google.com/speed/protocols/Increasing_TCPs_Initial_Window_IETF78.pdf
The related I-D is at:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hkchu-tcpm-initcwnd-01.txt

In the ideal case we want to present the above to TCPM, but because the WG
is not meeting in Maastricht, we want to
take the discussion to the mailing list.

We appreciate any questions or comments.

Wes, David,

Given that there is huge interest on this topic, and a voluminous amount of
work going toward validating and justifying
the proposal, it seems only fair that this I-D be adopted as a WG item. We
believe that any continuation work for the
complete approval of the proposal should be set appropriate milestones and
be performed under the guidance of the WG.
Please let us know how you would like us to proceed toward this goal.

Thanks,
-Nandita

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:37:03 -0500

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nandita Dukkipati [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:53 AM
>To: [email-masked]; Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP];
>David Borman
>Cc: Yuchung Cheng; Jerry Chu; Matthew Mathis; Arvind Jain
>Subject: Increasing TCP's Initial Congestion Window
>
> ...
>
>Wes, David,
>
>Given that there is huge interest on this topic, and a voluminous amount
>of work going toward validating and justifying
>the proposal, it seems only fair that this I-D be adopted as a WG item.
>We believe that any continuation work for the
>complete approval of the proposal should be set appropriate milestones
>and be performed under the guidance of the WG.

David and I just talked about this and propose to add a milestone to
the charter for late 2011, if the working group agrees, to publish
this document on increasing TCP's initial window, based on the large
amount of discussion both in the meetings and on the list.  If anyone
would object to this, please let us know in the next 2 weeks.

One thing I still don't understand, is how we know that the intended
status for standards track is appropriate at this point ... from
talking to David it sounds like the working group can determine that
after deciding to adopt it, and we don't have to have it decided ahead
of time.  It seems like the goal should be proposed standard, unless
we fail to get consensus that the evidence is suitable, in which case
experimental could work?  Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

---

From: Nandita Dukkipati <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:16:10 +0200

Wes,

> would object to this, please let us know in the next 2 weeks.

This plan is good with us. I suppose this means that we will know
definitively if it will be a TCPM WG item or not in the next one and half
weeks or so.

> experimental could work?  Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

I wasn't sure if the question was to us or for the WG, but in any case...
if at the end there isn't a consensus for it to be a Proposed Standard RFC,
we are OK with it being an Experimental RFC.

Thanks,
-Nandita

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:41:42 -0700

On 7/23/2010 12:37 PM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP] 
wrote:
...
> of time.

I don't think that's appropriate process. We need to decide when we 
adopt an item what its intended status will be, IMO.

Otherwise, it's too early to consider adopting it as a work item IMO. 
(that's not to say we can't continue to discuss it, though).

Joe

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:36:22 +0200

On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Joe Touch wrote:

>
>
> On 7/23/2010 12:37 PM, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE  
> CORP] wrote:
> ...
> Otherwise, it's too early to consider adopting it as a work item  
> IMO. (that's not to say we can't continue to discuss it, though).

I don't want to comment on this process matter, but, having said this  
to some
people in private, I believe it's about time to also say in the open  
that I support
adopting this as a WG item if it's Experimental.

Cheers,
Michael