----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Hartman" <[email protected]> To: "Mary Barnes" <[email protected]> Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[email protected]>; "IETF" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:26 PM
> >>>>> "Mary" == Mary Barnes <[email protected]> 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 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. 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.
