Subject: [Tsvwg] publication requested: draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-02

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:53:06 +0100

Hi, Secretariat (BCC'ed),

TSVWG requests publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-02 as a BCP RFC.

Lars

Document Shepherd Write-Up

> (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 for this document Lars Eggert  
([email-masked]). I have reviewed this document and believe it  
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?

The document has been presented to the WG during several IETF  
meetings and has been reviewed by a number of key WG members. It has  
also been discussed in the IRTF's ICCRG and the wider research  
community.

> (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?

The document has received sufficient review.

> (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.

I have no specific concerns regarding this document.

> (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 consensus was clear, but not overwhelmingly strong.

> (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.)

This has not happened.

> (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?

idnits 2.04.07 claims that there are minor formatting nits (one long  
line and several control characters) but the shepherd is unable to  
locate them in the draft.

>    (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].

The references are in order.

>    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>           consideration 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 Shepherd
>           conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the  
> IESG
>           can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document has no IANA considerations.

>    (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?

There are no such sections in the document.

>    (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.

The IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely shown  
to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed  
networks). Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion  
control schemes. Using these new congestion control schemes in the  
global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic using  
the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently  
standardized congestion control. Therefore, the IETF must proceed  
with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control  
proposals. The goal of this document is to provide guidance for  
considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF.

>           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 WG consensus on this document was clear, but not overwhelmingly  
strong.

>           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?

The document has been presented to the WG during several IETF  
meetings and has been reviewed by a number of key WG members. It has  
also been discussed in the IRTF's ICCRG and the wider research  
community.

>           Personnel
>              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who  
> is the
>              Responsible Area Director?

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