(AD hat on) I agree that a congestion control WG would be a fine venue for this; as it's not even chartered, we could incorporate. However, as that process is going slower than I'd like, the authors are welcome to try tsvwg if they don't want to wait.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:50 AM Matt Joras <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > To close the loop here, we'd like to thank all respondents to the call for > adoption. The chairs' sense of the feedback is that while this is useful > work that people support at the IETF, it is work in a problem space is more > broadly to do with congestion control and not entirely QUIC specific. As > such, this work is most likely suited to another working group. > Coincidentally, parallel to the adoption call for careful resume, the > Transport Area ADs launched a proposal for a new congestion control focused > WG. This was discussed on the TSVAREA list and during the IETF 114 session, > with next steps posted to the list [1]. A few respondents identified that > this new group, should it form, would be a suitable venue for such a > document. > Based on the feedback we have received, together with other activity in > the IETF, the chairs have judged there is not currently consensus for > adopting careful resume to the QUIC WG. > > Matt & Lucas > [1] - > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/r_4jPmT55sKl0iumvIPklITb9gc/ > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:59 AM Piers O'Hanlon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I agree it would something useful to work on (given the Linux Kernel has >> provided something similar for tcp with its `ip tcp_metrics` for some time) >> but it seems more general so other working groups could benefit from. >> >> >> >> > On 25 Jul 2022, at 17:16, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Reminder: the adoption call ends in several hours. >> > >> > If you have yet to comment, please do so soon. >> > >> > >> >>
