TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
charter-ietf-tcpm-10

[Ballot comment]
Clearly no objection as we need this WG. I just wonder whether the following sentences are really correct and are useful, I suggest to remove them.

`TCP is currently the Internet's predominant transport protocol.`

`(as community energy is available for such efforts).`

Added milestone "Submit document on adding acknowledgement rate handling for TCP to the IESG for publication as Experimental RFC", due October 2024, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit document on a TCP Extended Data Offset Option to the IESG as a Proposed Standard RFC", due December 2023, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit document on adding Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to TCP Control Packets to the IESG for publication as Experimental RFC", due January 2023, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit specification of more accurate ECN feedback in TCP to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC", due December 2022, from current group milestones

[Ballot block]
While we are rechartering both TCPM and TSVWG, I am wondering if we should take this opportunity to get rid of the following from the TCM charter -

  The focus of the working group is TCP. In cases where small
changes are directly applicable to other transports (e.g., SCTP or
DCCP), the mappings to other transports may be specified alongside
that for TCP, but other significant additions and changes to other
transports are not in scope.

is there any planned work that impacts "other transports"? if now then we don't need this provision for future work. If the comes up we can very well do that in TSVWG.

[Ballot comment]
Minor changes only about MPTCP.

Just wondering why the congestion control is mentioned for MPTCP while later in the text, it is clear that TCPM is also in charge of congestion control.

-éric

[Ballot comment]
This is a minor change accompany the closure of MPTCP (in the next days). While we all (ADs and chairs) agree that working on minor extensions or fixes for MPTCP is in scope already with the old charter text, this update is intended to also make this explicitly clear to e.g. people from outside the IETF. Therefore I would like to request to approve this small recharter without external review.

Added milestone "Submit document on a TCP Extended Data Offset Option to the IESG as a Proposed Standard RFC", due November 2020, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit document on adding Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to TCP Control Packets to the IESG for publication as Experimental RFC", due September 2020, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit specification of more accurate ECN feedback in TCP to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC", due August 2020, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit document on a time-based fast loss detection algorithm for TCP to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC", due April 2020, from current group milestones

[Ballot comment]
Clarification question.
When I read those sentences

    In addition,
    TCPM may document alternative congestion control algorithms
    that are known to be widely deployed, and that are considered
    safe for large-scale deployment in the Internet.

    ...

    TCP's congestion control algorithms are the model followed by
    alternate transports (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), which are standardized in
    other working groups, such as the Transport Area WG (tsvwg). In the
    past, the IETF has worked on several documents about algorithms that
    are specified for multiple protocols (e.g., TCP and SCTP) in the
    same document. Which WG shepherds such documents will be determined
    on a case-by-case basis.

Let's pretend I have a SCTP alternative congestion algorithm, is this the right WG?
Do you want to clarify this with an extra "TCP" in the first sentence?
NEW:

    In addition,
    TCPM may document alternative TCP congestion control algorithms
    that are known to be widely deployed, and that are considered
    safe for large-scale deployment in the Internet.

Added milestone "Submit document on a TCP Extended Data Offset Option to the IESG as a Proposed Standard RFC", due August 2015, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit revision of TCP roadmap (RFC 4614) to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", due March 2014, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Submit document on an analysis of more detailed ECN feedback in TCP to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC", due November 2013, from current group milestones