Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0700 (PDT)

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Adding Acknowledgement 
Congestion Control to TCP' <draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt> as an 
Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15946&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Lars Eggert.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt

The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

   This document describes a possible congestion control mechanism for
   acknowledgement traffic (ACKs) in TCP.  The document specifies an
   end-to-end acknowledgement congestion control mechanism for TCP that
   uses participation from both TCP hosts, the TCP data sender and the
   TCP data receiver.

   This acknowledgement congestion control mechanism is being specified
   for further evaluation by the network community.

Working Group Summary

   (This document is an independent submission to the RFC Editor.)

Document Quality

   (This document is an independent submission to the RFC Editor.)

Personnel

   Lars Eggert ([email-masked]) reviewed this document
   for the IESG.

RFC Editor Note

   The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
   TCPM, but this does not prevent publishing.

IESG Note

      The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF,
      and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a
      published IETF work.  This RFC is not a candidate for any level of
      Internet Standard.  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the
      fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that
      the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such
      things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate
      interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to
      publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of this RFC
      should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation
      and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.