• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: tsvwg

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-05-29 02:55 Martin Stiemerling

The authors have applied the requested changes out of the IESG review. The amount of changes require that the WG double-checks them in a WGLC before sending the draft of the RFC editor.

2013-05-29 02:55 Martin Stiemerling

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

2013-05-23 23:19 Bob Briscoe

New revision available

2013-04-26 09:04 Martin Stiemerling

waiting for an updated draft that fixes the editorials.

2013-03-28 12:13 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation

2013-03-28 09:07 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-03-28 08:44 Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-03-28 08:00 Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]
I support the DISCUSS of my esteemed co-AD from Urbana.

2013-03-28 08:00 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba

2013-03-28 06:55 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2013-03-28 05:38 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel

2013-03-27 22:07 Pete Resnick

[Ballot discuss]
I think Sean is on to something regarding status and the Updates metadata, but I think it's even more interesting than he indicates. 2309 was an IRTF document, which explains why it is Informational. If we have now gotten to the point that the recommendations in 2309 really are all requirements (except for the preferential treatment of small packets), doesn't that justify bringing that document into the IETF stream in addition to this one, or incorporating the recommendations of 2309 into this document? If this is only updating the research in 2309, then it is appropriate to keep this document Informational as well. But if this document deserves a "higher" status, it sounds like (at least the content of) 2309 does too. Please explain.

I'd also like to hear a bit about the status itself. BCP is usually for recommendations of policy and operational guidelines. But the things in this document sound more like protocol recommendations, and things that we'd get implementation experience with over time, not things that should instantly jump to the "done" level of a BCP. Is there a reason this isn't going for the standards track instead of BCP? It sounds like protocol to me.

Finally, if this is to be a BCP, I wonder if it should be folded into BCP 41 and not made a new BCP all by itself. I'd like to hear if you think this is part of the set of overall "Congestion Control Principles" or has some reason to stand alone. An explanation of how BCP 41 (RFC 2914), RFC 2309, and this document fit together would be quite useful.

2013-03-27 22:07 Pete Resnick

[Ballot comment]
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3: The recommendations are all given in the form of RECOMMENDEDs, SHOULDs, and SHOULD NOTs, yet there is no indication when these choices might *not* be taken, and in fact 2.1 makes it sound like there is "no other choice". Is there a reason these are not put in the form of MUST, etc.?

2013-03-27 22:07 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2013-03-27 17:21 Sean Turner

[Ballot discuss]
I feel the flames at my heels, but I have to ask or maybe state what I think going on with the updates/intended status mix (likely no action required by the authors):

This document is obsoleting a particular portion of RFC 2309 and then specifying a new BCP around the new recommendation? The rest of RFC 2309 is staying at informational? Is there harm in publishing this without including the updates header or maybe with obsoletes 2309 instead?

2013-03-27 17:21 Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner

2013-03-26 23:48 Jari Arkko

[Ballot comment]
I have done a basic review of discussion and the document; I'm awaiting for a possible Gen-ART review on this document, and if one arrives, it may update may position.

2013-03-26 23:48 Jari Arkko

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko

2013-03-26 02:24 Stewart Bryant

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant

2013-03-25 23:10 Joel Jaeggli

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.