|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi all,We have now requested publication of draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-05 as an Experimental RFC. The document shepherd writeup is provided below.
Many thanks to the authors and everyone else who helped by commenting the document!
- Pasi ------ Quick-Start for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-05 (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?The Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. The shepherd has read the latest version of the document and believes this is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?WGLC for version 03 of this document to go for Experimental was announced by Tom Phelan on DCCP mailing list on 11-May-2009, and it ended 29-May-2009. The WGLC was forwarded also to TSVWG mailing list. During the WGLC comments were received by Pasi Sarolahti (who read the document before named as DCCP chair) and Michael Scharf (who has implemented Quick-Start for Linux TCP) from TSVWG. The earlier version of the document was reviewed by several people and the comments have been addressed. The shepherd has no concerns and believes the document is appropriately reviewed.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?The WG has consensus on publishing this document, and the shepherd believes that the DCCP community understands and agrees with it.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].References have been split into normative and informative. All normatively referenced documents are completed RFCs. No downward references.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so thatthe IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
Yes. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Not applicable. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the use of the Quick-Start mechanism by the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). The document specifies general procedures applicable to all DCCP CCIDs and specific procedures for the use of Quick-Start with DCCP CCID 2, CCID 3 and CCID 4. Quick-Start enables a DCCP sender to cooperate with Quick-Start routers along the end-to-end path to determine an allowed sending rate at the start of a connection and, at times, in the middle of a DCCP connection (e.g., after an idle or application- limited period). Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?The document has been produced and reviewed by the DCCP working group and the WG is in agreement to publish this document. A copy of the WG last-call note was also sent to the TSVWG mailing list.
Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?There are no implementations known of this specification, apart from ns-2 simulations. The key authors of the original Quick-Start RFC 4782 have also reviewed the earlier version of the document, and the document has addressed their comments.
PersonnelWho is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' Document shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@xxxxxx>. Responsible Area Director is Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>. (end)