[Iccrg] Empty space on the agenda, and still looking for reviewers for draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-03

[Michael Welzl]

Hi,

As you can see at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/agenda/agenda-84-iccrg there's plenty 
of space on our agenda, in case someone wants to present something...

On a side note, we're still looking for volunteers to review 
draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-03, see below.

Cheers,
Michael


On 6/22/12 9:28 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First of all, the draft is here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-03
>
> I think there were no public comments on the mailing list, just at the 
> meeting @ IETF 80. Here they are:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/iccrg.txt
>
> As for the question "may we now return to TCPM": we don't take a 
> formal role in this process - i.e., you may decide to take this to 
> TCPM at any time.
>
> The point of ICCRG review is to get comments and incorporate feedback, 
> up to a point where, if someone in TCPM says "this and that looks like 
> open research, you should take this to ICCRG" you could ideally point 
> to reviews that were already done there, and comments that were 
> incorporated, thereby hopefully settling the discussion. If pointing 
> to reviews can't settle it, this is going to make the document bounce 
> back to ICCRG with a specific request from TCPM, which is also fine, 
> but I think it would be most efficient to minimize (or, even better, 
> altogether avoid) such iterations.
>
> Since Gorry is saying that they'd love more comments, can I ask for 
> volunteers to do a thorough review? For previous proposals of changes 
> to TCP's congestion control, we had 2-3 such reviews.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> On 6/21/12 4:43 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> ICCRG,
>>
>> We have revised our draft called "Updating TCP to support
>> Variable-Rate Traffic". We think the feedback we received after ICCRG
>> has been addressed and are grateful to all who commented. This new
>> version is also intended to be easier to read.
>>
>> Here is a summary of issues and NiTs that were corrected:
>> (1)    Non-validation phase time changed to 5 from 6 minutes,
>>     following comments that TCP aleady has a 5 minute timer.
>> (2)    Section 4.3.2:  At the end of the recovery phase, the TCP sender
>>     MUST reset the cwnd to (FlightSize-R)/2 and not FlightSize/2.
>> (3)     Various places to improve language and address questions about
>>     ambiguities after iccrg.
>> (4)     Note change of author (Israfil has now moved-on to a job
>>     elsewhere).
>>
>> We'd love more comments, and also like to know what happens next to
>> this draft. Are there more things that ICCRG wishes to think upon, or
>> may we now return to TCPM with a proposal to take this forward there?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Gorry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iccrg mailing list
> Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg