(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?
This document is intended as BCP. (This was discussed at IETF-81 and that
the status changed from Informational to BCP, because the draft provides
guidance to implementors and people configuring routers and hosts). The
BCP status was confirmed on the tsvwg list prior to resubmission to the
IESG, only one comment was noted requesting informational status.
(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 document provides recommendations of best current practice for
dropping or marking packets using any active queue management (AQM)
algorithm, including random early detection (RED), BLUE, pre-
congestion notification (PCN) and newer schemes such as CoDel and
PIE. We give three strong recommendations: (1) packet size should be
taken into account when transports detect and respond to congestion
indications, (2) packet size should not be taken into account when
network equipment creates congestion signals (marking, dropping), and
therefore (3) in the specific case of RED, the byte-mode packet drop
variant that drops fewer small packets should not be used. This memo
updates RFC 2309 to deprecate deliberate preferential treatment of
small packets in AQM algorithms.
Working Group Summary
There was consensus to publish this as a WG document and agreement at
IETF-82 that the document was now complete. Since then there have been a
number of revisions to address WG feedback.
Document Quality
Annexe A summarises a survey by the original authors showing deployment of
the techniques by router vendors. The recommendations are thought to be in
line with that of IETF groups, such as TSVWG, TCPM, PCN, and are
considered good advice for use in the general Internet.
Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
I am the document shepherd, G Fairhurst.
The responsible AD is Martin Stiemerling
(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 was presented at IEWTF-82 (Taipei), with a request for WGLC.
The first WGLC concluded with some discussion and suggested changes on
Friday 30th March 2012. The changes were discussed on the list, and have
been implemented in a revised draft. Major edits were applied to correct
comments after the document left the WG. Comments were received from 8
people after this document were returned to the WG. The changes were
confirmed in a WG draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-11, with a
WGLC ending on 19th August 2013. This WGLC concluded with no additional
comments.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This has already completed one IESG review.
(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.
(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 have been submitted directly on
draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest.
(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 WG support and there is consensus to publish.
(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.
No.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(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.
One update is listed, RFC 2309, informational - replaced by this BCP.
It deprecates deliberate preferential treatment of small packets in AQM
algorithms.
(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).
Not applicable.
(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.
None.
(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.
Not applicable.