<inline> ----- Original Message ----- From: <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:53 PM Ah, the 'but security, unlike transport, is actually important' argument. Having seen subscribers to that philosophy unsuccessfully attempt to design transport protocols (and raise the MD5 issue repeatedly, because it's considered a security issue, and they're at home with security), I would argue that there is a lack of appreciation and understanding of the nuances of transport protocol issues in the IETF. Reliability, implications of the end-to-end protocol, feedback loops... <snip> But watching security people make a hash of transport protocol design really isn't fun. That and the lack of transport expertise concerns me. <tp> We are not talking of transport protocol design - SCTP, DCCP, ... - but of Congestion Control design. The question is can we do with a Transport Area Director whose congestion control skills are limited; I am suggesting we can, because of all the work over the years in congestion control and the relative stability of the topic. Transport matters, congestion control matters, I am just suggesting that the latter is not developping so much that we need an AD who is abreast of the research in it. Tom Petch Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn > 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.