Subject: [tsvwg] Request to publish draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03 as PS

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 16:43:23 +0100

The WG of this document has concluded, and the results of the reviews 
have been incorporated (-03).

On behalf of TSVWG, I have submitted the write-up below to our AD 
(Spencer) with a request for publication as a PS. Thank you to all who 
contributed to this work, and reviewed the progress.

Best wishes,

Gorry
(TSVWG Co-Chair)

----

Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-03

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.
This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, 
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is 
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title 
page header?

Standards Track, PS.

(2) 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:
    This memo updates RFC 3168, which specifies Explicit Congestion
    Notification (ECN) as a replacement for packet drops as indicators of
    network congestion.  It relaxes restrictions in RFC 3168 that would
    otherwise hinder experimentation towards benefits beyond just removal
    of loss.  The memo summarizes the anticipated areas of
    experimentation and updates RFC 3168 to enable experimentation in
    these areas.  An Experimental RFC is required to take advantage of
    any of these enabling updates.  In addition, this memo makes related
    updates to the ECN specifications for RTP in RFC 6679 and for DCCP in
    RFC 4341, RFC 4342 and RFC 5622.  The memo also records the
    conclusion of the ECN Nonce experiment in RFC 3540, and provides the
    rationale for reclassification of RFC 3540 as Historic; this
    reclassification enables new experimental use of the ECT(1)
    codepoint.

Working Group Summary:

The document was adopted by the working group to enable two specific 
pieces of work - ABE (now in TCPM) and L4S (now a working group item in 
TSVWG). Both these items of work curently have experimental status, yet 
seek to modify the ECN specification produced by TSVWG - specifically to 
obsolete the ECN NONCE. This topic has been discussed in TSVWG over many 
years and it is finally the consensus that the experiment has concluded 
and that the ECN NONCE specification is no longer recommended for 
deployment.
Document Quality: The document is ready to publish.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?  Gorry Fairhurst

Who is the Responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by 
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for 
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has received significant review by several people in TSVWG 
- both as an individual submission and as as WG draft, including 
detailed feedback from M Welzl and B Briscoe. Minor updates were made in 
response to last call comments and this document is therefore ready to 
proceed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or 
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. This draft has been reviewed many times.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from 
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, 
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took 
place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd 
has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR 
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes. The author confirms that he knows of no IPR for this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If 
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR 
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures known.

(9) 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 document has been presented to the WG and there was consensus on the 
document during WGLC. Minor issues were raised, and changes have been 
incorporated in this revision of the ID.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this 
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts 
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be 
thorough.

None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either 
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? 
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing 
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the 
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed 
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of 
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs 
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why 
the WG considers it unnecessary.

None.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations 
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the 
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes 
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. 
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly 
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a 
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that 
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a 
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This memo does not make a request to IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future 
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful 
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
This memo does not include a request for a new registry to IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document 
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal 
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.