----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Stiemerling" <martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx> To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:13 AM > Hi Tom, > > On 03/05/2013 11:38 AM, t.p. wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Hartman" > > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> To: "Mary Barnes" > > <mary.ietf.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Sam Hartman" > > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March > > 04, 2013 8:26 PM > > > >>>>>>> "Mary" == Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> writes: > >> > >> Mary> And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me > > the > >> Mary> question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the > >> Mary> position with someone that doesn't have the specific > > expertise > >> Mary> that his being sought than to leave the position unfilled. > >> Mary> Having dealt with the exact same issue when I was Nomcom > >> Mary> chair, I thoroughly understand the issue at hand. And, Mary> > >> certainly, there was a lot of criticism of the choice of the Mary> > >> Nomcom I chaired, but we really are between a rock and a > > hard > >> Mary> place yet again. > >> > >> I think it would be really useful to get someone like Lars or the > > chair > >> of the tcpm working group to comment on how much congestion > >> control experience we're talking about as a requirement. > > > > Not much, based on my experience:-( > > > > The I-Ds I have been closely involved with have typically drawn > > DISCUSS from Security and Transport and while those from Security > > have usually given me pause, enlightened me, made me do my homework, > > those for Transport seem to be saying that you must not give any > > encouragement to the use of UDP and nothing more than that. I do > > Can you clarify about what point of time you're talking about? There are > multiple instances of the IESG and also the TSV ADs and handling of the > issue might have changed over the years. > > The recent instance is good with using UDP, but the draft needs to > clearly state how it addresses congestion control and that is the point > where a lot of draft fail. > > This has been also the case in the past, when I remember right. Martin I am looking back over a number of years (eg SNMP, syslog). A perspective over many years, in any area, is that some problems become solved, with changes in technology. What is post graduate research becomes the next generation's seventh grade homework. Congestion control is essential else we have congestive collapse, which I have had to find and fix in my time; but I am positing that for most of the IETF, congestion control is a solved topic and little expertise is needed, in contrast to Security which is for ever changing (SHA2 or SHA3 or will MD5 still suffice?). Yes, a high-level of skill exists, especially in the ICCRG (and I struggle to follow it) but I wonder if we need that skill in the IETF ie a basic familiarity with what TCP offers and UDP does not will serve most of our work. Tom Petch > > track TCPM and ICCRG and have some insight into the sophistication of > > modern control mechanisms, but outside those groups, the application > > of congestion control seems basic; TCP and its (friendly) derivatives > > OK, anything else not OK. > > Also a very shortened view. > > However, TCP and derivatives are well understood in large-scale > deployments, e.g., in the Internet, others are too, e.g., SCTP, while > some aren't. > > > Martin > > > > > Tom Petch > > > >> > >> When I read Lars's messages, I'm not actually sure he and I are > >> disagreeing. > >> > >> There's a lot of things it could mean for the IESG to have > >> congestion control expertise. > > > > > > -- > martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx > > NEC Laboratories Europe > NEC Europe Limited > Registered Office: > Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB > Registered in England 2832014 >