CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-08-04
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2023-06-22
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2023-06-08
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-03-06
|
15 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Telechat review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-02-28
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-15.txt |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2023-01-31
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2023-01-31
|
15 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-19
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Injong Rhee, Lisong Xu, Sangtae Ha, Lars Eggert, Vidhi Goel (IESG state changed) |
2023-01-19
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2023-01-19
|
14 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] After reading the ballots, I went to go see what all the fuss is about with the Shepherd Writeup -- and fully support … [Ballot comment] After reading the ballots, I went to go see what all the fuss is about with the Shepherd Writeup -- and fully support everyone's comments; it was nicely detailed and helpful. I'd also like to thank Bo Wu for the OpsDir writeup, and also, of course, the authors for writing this. I didn't understand much of the deep details / math, but it sounded plausible and used many big words, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
2023-01-19
|
14 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2023-01-19
|
14 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the solid work on this document and also wanted to say, thanks for the great shepherd writeup that was detailed clear … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the solid work on this document and also wanted to say, thanks for the great shepherd writeup that was detailed clear and concise. |
2023-01-19
|
14 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-01-18
|
14 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Yoshifumi Nishida for the outstanding shepherd writeup, in particular the section on WG consensus. |
2023-01-18
|
14 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] It's nice to see such expressive math in an RFC (even if I don't comprehend most of it, I'm sure the target audience … [Ballot comment] It's nice to see such expressive math in an RFC (even if I don't comprehend most of it, I'm sure the target audience appreciates it too) |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/_BMAGlC1TXKYcLy0HC1yF6ZR11M/ , and to the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/_BMAGlC1TXKYcLy0HC1yF6ZR11M/ , and to the author for addressing Spencer's comments. |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Francesca Palombini | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this due specification. |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-01-18
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2023-01-13
|
14 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Bo Wu for the OPSDIR review. |
2023-01-13
|
14 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-01-12
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Yoav Nir for the SECDIR review. |
2023-01-12
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-01-12
|
14 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-01-08
|
14 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S4.4, S4.5 * The text file version seems to have rendered the … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S4.4, S4.5 * The text file version seems to have rendered the "cwnd" in the demoninator as "culvert", which was pretty confusing. :-) ### S5.1 * "networks with a short RTTs" -> "networks with short RTTs", probably |
2023-01-08
|
14 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-01-06
|
14 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao |
2023-01-06
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2023-01-05
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins. Review has been revised by Spencer Dawkins. |
2023-01-05
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins. Review has been revised by Spencer Dawkins. |
2023-01-05
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins. |
2023-01-05
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier … Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2022-12-25
|
14 | Yoav Nir | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir. Sent review to list. |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | Telechat date has been changed to 2023-01-19 from 2023-01-05 |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-01-05 |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | Ballot has been issued |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-12-20
|
14 | Bo Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list. |
2022-12-19
|
14 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2022-12-19
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-12-13
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-12-13
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2022-12-10
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2022-12-10
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2022-12-08
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Spencer Dawkins |
2022-12-08
|
14 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Spencer Dawkins |
2022-12-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2022-12-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2022-12-07
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2022-12-07
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-12-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, nsd.ietf@gmail.com, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-12-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, nsd.ietf@gmail.com, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'CUBIC for Fast and Long-Distance Networks' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-12-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract CUBIC is a standard TCP congestion control algorithm that uses a cubic function instead of a linear congestion window increase function to improve scalability and stability over fast and long- distance networks. CUBIC has been adopted as the default TCP congestion control algorithm by the Linux, Windows, and Apple stacks. This document updates the specification of CUBIC to include algorithmic improvements based on these implementations and recent academic work. Based on the extensive deployment experience with CUBIC, it also moves the specification to the Standards Track, obsoleting RFC 8312. This also requires updating RFC 5681, to allow for CUBIC's occasionally more aggressive sending behavior. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Martin Duke | Last call was requested |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Martin Duke | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Martin Duke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-12-05
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-12-05
|
14 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-12-05
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-14.txt |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-12-05
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-12-05
|
14 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-06
|
13 | Martin Duke | Changed action holders to Injong Rhee, Lisong Xu, Sangtae Ha, Lars Eggert, Vidhi Goel |
2022-10-26
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Injong Rhee, Lisong Xu, Sangtae Ha, Lars Eggert, Vidhi Goel (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-26
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2022-10-25
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-10-25
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents This version is dated 4 July 2022. # Document History 1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the … Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents This version is dated 4 July 2022. # Document History 1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There was a broad consensus in the WG on the document including the implementers from major OSes and QUIC community. 2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Although there was a broad consensus in the WG, it was not unanimous. This draft specifies CUBIC congestion control algorithm as an updated version of RFC8312, which will promote the specification to a proposed standard. This means we will have the second standard congestion control algorithm for TCP in addition to Reno which was published 20 years ago. Because of the importance of the document, there were arguments on the points listed below. 1: RFC5033 provides a guideline and a process for considering new congestion control algorithms within the IETF. One argument was that the draft has not been through the entire process described in the RFC. 2: CUBIC utilizes Reno-friendly model for controlling transfer rate in order to behave mostly fairly when it competes with Reno in low BDP environments. One argument was that the paper which originally proposed the model has not provided convincing explanations that the model can be well-suited for Today's Internet. Also, a recent test result suggests that CUBIC looks fair to Reno in those low BDP environments. 3: CUBIC uses 0.7 as multiplicative decrease factor for congestion window while Reno uses 0.5. In low BDP environments, Reno-friendly model is used to compensate the aggressiveness by adopting slower congestion window growth rate than Reno. However, one argument was the high multiplicative decrease factor will still be aggressive in some situations, which leads to unfair resource sharing with Reno. As a result of discussions, we've reached a rough consensus to publish the document and decided to continue the discussions on these points for the future version of the documents. The summarized rationales behind the decision are the followings while more detailed explanations were added in the document. * CUBIC already has been deployed globally for decades and we have not observed any evidences for the issues or potential risks for it in the past. * We have a solid consensus that there is fairly low risk that any parts of CUBIC's logics lead to congestion collapse on the Internet. * As CUBIC has been widely deployed as default congestion control scheme, Reno is becoming less used on the Internet. This would mean maintaining fairness with Reno becomes less important. * It is not obvious that CUBIC go beyond the general congestion control principles outlined in RFC2914, so the process described in RFC5033 may not need to be applied. Also, the document provides explanations of the safety features in CUBIC to meet the guidelines in RFC5033. 3) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No one has threatened an appeal. We haven't seen any other conflicts or discontents except the points described in 2). 4) For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? CUBIC has been one of the most deployed congestion control algorithm for TCP which all major OSes have supported. Also, various QUIC implementations support it as well. # Additional Reviews 5) Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. As CUBIC algorithm can be used in other transport protocols, We've received various individual feedback from the experts of QUIC. Also, linux kernel experts had provided feedback from the implementors' points of view. 6) Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not require any formal reviews. 7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8) Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No formal language verifications are necessary for the documents. # Document Shepherd Checks 9) Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes, the document is clearly written and ready to be handed off. 10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No issue has been identified. 11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The intended status of the document is Proposed Standard as there is a strong consensus in the WG. Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect it. 12) Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. We've confirmed from all authors that there is no IPR related to the contents of the document. 13) Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, all five authors are willing to be listed as such. 14) Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits 2.17.1 reports no errors in the document. There are some warnings, but we've confirmed that we don't need to address them. 15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No, they are classified correctly. 16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None 17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. None 18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No such reference. 19) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? The document will obsolete RFC8312 as the new specification for CUBIC and will move the specification to the Standards Track. It will also update some restrictions specified in RFC5681 based on the differences between Reno and CUBIC. 20) Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document does not require any IANA actions. 21) List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not have any new IANA registries. |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2022-10-13
|
13 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents This version is dated 4 July 2022. # Document History 1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the … Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents This version is dated 4 July 2022. # Document History 1) Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There was a broad consensus in the WG on the document including the implementers from major OSes and QUIC community. 2) Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Although there was a broad consensus in the WG, it was not unanimous. This draft specifies CUBIC congestion control algorithm as an updated version of RFC8312, which will promote the specification to a proposed standard. This means we will have the second standard congestion control algorithm for TCP in addition to Reno which was published 20 years ago. Because of the importance of the document, there were arguments on the points listed below. 1: RFC5033 provides a guideline and a process for considering new congestion control algorithms within the IETF. One argument was that the draft has not been through the entire process described in the RFC. 2: CUBIC utilizes Reno-friendly model for controlling transfer rate in order to behave mostly fairly when it competes with Reno in low BDP environments. One argument was that the paper which originally proposed the model has not provided convincing explanations that the model can be well-suited for Today's Internet. Also, a recent test result suggests that CUBIC looks fair to Reno in those low BDP environments. 3: CUBIC uses 0.7 as multiplicative decrease factor for congestion window while Reno uses 0.5. In low BDP environments, Reno-friendly model is used to compensate the aggressiveness by adopting slower congestion window growth rate than Reno. However, one argument was the high multiplicative decrease factor will still be aggressive in some situations, which leads to unfair resource sharing with Reno. As a result of discussions, we've reached a rough consensus to publish the document and decided to continue the discussions on these points for the future version of the documents. The summarized rationales behind the decision are the followings while more detailed explanations were added in the document. * CUBIC already has been deployed globally for decades and we have not observed any evidences for the issues or potential risks for it in the past. * We have a solid consensus that there is fairly low risk that any parts of CUBIC's logics lead to congestion collapse on the Internet. * As CUBIC has been widely deployed as default congestion control scheme, Reno is becoming less used on the Internet. This would mean maintaining fairness with Reno becomes less important. * It is not obvious that CUBIC go beyond the general congestion control principles outlined in RFC2914, so the process described in RFC5033 may not need to be applied. Also, the document provides explanations of the safety features in CUBIC to meet the guidelines in RFC5033. 3) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No one has threatened an appeal. We haven't seen any other conflicts or discontents except the points described in 2). 4) For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? CUBIC has been one of the most deployed congestion control algorithm for TCP which all major OSes have supported. Also, various QUIC implementations support it as well. # Additional Reviews 5) Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. As CUBIC algorithm can be used in other transport protocols, We've received various individual feedback from the experts of QUIC. Also, linux kernel experts had provided feedback from the implementors' points of view. 6) Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not require any formal reviews. 7) If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342? The document does not contain a YANG module. 8) Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. No formal language verifications are necessary for the documents. # Document Shepherd Checks 9) Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes, the document is clearly written and ready to be handed off. 10) Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No issue has been identified. 11) What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? The intended status of the document is Proposed Standard as there is a strong consensus in the WG. Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect it. 12) Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. We've confirmed from all authors that there is no IPR related to the contents of the document. 13) Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, all five authors are willing to be listed as such. 14) Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits 2.17.1 reports no errors in the document. There are some warnings, but we've confirmed that we don't need to address them. 15) Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No, they are classified correctly. 16) List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None 17) Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. None 18) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No such reference. 19) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? The document will obsolete RFC8312 as the new specification for CUBIC and will move the specification to the Standards Track. It will also update some restrictions specified in RFC5681 based on the differences between Reno and CUBIC. 20) Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document does not require any IANA actions. 21) List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. This document does not have any new IANA registries. |
2022-10-12
|
13 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-13.txt |
2022-10-12
|
13 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-10-12
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-10-12
|
13 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-12
|
12 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-12.txt |
2022-10-12
|
12 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-10-12
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-10-12
|
12 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-08
|
11 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-10-08
|
11 | Yoshifumi Nishida | We've seen a strong consensus in the WG to publish the document as a proposed standard. |
2022-10-08
|
11 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-10-05
|
11 | Michael Tüxen | Notification list changed to nsd.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-05
|
11 | Michael Tüxen | Document shepherd changed to Yoshifumi Nishida |
2022-09-23
|
11 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-11.txt |
2022-09-23
|
11 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-09-23
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-09-23
|
11 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-12
|
10 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-10.txt |
2022-09-12
|
10 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-09-12
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-09-12
|
10 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-08-31
|
09 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-09.txt |
2022-08-31
|
09 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-08-31
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-08-31
|
09 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2022-05-30
|
08 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-08.txt |
2022-05-30
|
08 | Lars Eggert | New version approved |
2022-05-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-05-30
|
08 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-04
|
07 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-07.txt |
2022-03-04
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-04
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-03-04
|
07 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-26
|
06 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-06.txt |
2022-01-26
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-01-26
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2022-01-26
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-11-02
|
05 | Michael Tüxen | Added to session: IETF-112: tcpm Thu-1200 |
2021-10-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-05.txt |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2021-10-25
|
05 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-27
|
04 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-04.txt |
2021-08-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-08-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2021-08-27
|
04 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-26
|
03 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-03.txt |
2021-07-26
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-26
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2021-07-26
|
03 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-24
|
02 | Michael Tüxen | Added to session: IETF-111: tcpm Tue-1600 |
2021-05-17
|
02 | Martin Duke | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-05-05
|
02 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-02.txt |
2021-05-05
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-05-05
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2021-05-05
|
02 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-21
|
01 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-01.txt |
2021-04-21
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-21
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Injong Rhee , Lars Eggert , Lisong Xu , Sangtae Ha , Vidhi Goel |
2021-04-21
|
01 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Michael Tüxen | This document now replaces draft-eggert-tcpm-rfc8312bis instead of None |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Lars Eggert | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc8312bis-00.txt |
2021-03-15
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Lars Eggert | Set submitter to "Lars Eggert ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: tcpm-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-03-15
|
00 | Lars Eggert | Uploaded new revision |