Shepherd writeup

(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?

	Proposed Standard. This draft replaces earlier RFC 1323 that
	also was a Proposed Standard. The title page header currently
	says "Standards Track".

(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 replaces RFC 1323, making minor fixes and
	clarifications to the original document. The document
	specifies three performance enhancing extensions to TCP, using
	two TCP options. The first is window scale option, that allows
	representation of receive window sizes larger than 2^16 bytes
	originally allowed by the 16-bit window field. The second
	option is TCP timestamps option that allows round-trip time
	measurement on each TCP segment, and third is an algorithm to
	detect and reject old duplicate segments that happen to match
	the current TCP window (Protect Against Wrapped Sequence

Working Group Summary

	This document has been a chartered TCPM working group item
	since year 2008. It has not been under significant
	controversy, but the progress has been slow because of earlier
	lack of WG (and authoring) cycles. Since adding a new
	co-editor, the progress on the draft became faster in the
	working group.

Document Quality

	The predecessor of this document, RFC 1323, was published in
	1992, and is deployed in most TCP implementations. This
	document includes fixes and clarifications based on the gained
	deployment experience. The recent versions of the document
	have been reviewed and discussed by multiple working group


	Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti.
	Reponsible Area Director 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 shepherd has read the latest version of the
	document and the recent mailing list discussion, and thinks
	the document is ready for publication.

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


(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.


(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.

	Document shepherd does not have concerns about the document

(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.

	Not all authors responded when queried about this (most of
	them are not actively participating IETF these days). The
	editor of the draft confirms this on his part, however.

	It should be noted the original RFC 1323 was dated in 1992,
	and the documented mechanism has been included in various
	implementations for a long time. No IPR disclosures on RFC
	1323 are known.

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

	No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document

(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 recent versions of the document were extensively discussed
	on the TCPM mailing list, by several members of the community,
	for example regarding the normative language about how to
	handle packets without TCP timestamps option after use of
	timestamps has been negotiated (which is considered a corner
	case in today's implementations).  The current approach is not
	unanimously supported by all working group participants, but
	the WG chairs think it represents the rough consensus of the

	There were also some opinions suggesting that some of the
	benefits could be achieved with less TCP option overhead. The
	WG chairs concluded that considering the original scope of
	the document (fixes and clarifications to RFC 1323), and its
	large existing deployment base, it is important to publish the
	current document, but keep the discussion open for future

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

	There are informational references to obsolete RFCs 1072 and
	RFC 1185. These are left in for documenting the history behind
	this document, and are included intentionally.

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

	No formal review required.

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


(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?


(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.


(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.

	This document revises, and therefore obsoletes RFC 1323. This
	is stated in the header, and introduction explains the history
	rather clearly.

(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).

	There are no new IANA considerations, even though the document
	specifies two TCP options, because the needed numbers have
	already been allocated when publishing RFC 1323.

(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.

	No new IANA registeries needed.

(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.

	No automated checks needed.