As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. 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?
The intended status of the document is Experimental.
This document proposes an algorithm that controls congestion window
size for rate-limited applications.
WG concluded that Experimental is appropriate status for the document
in order to explore its efficiency and feasibility.
(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:
This document describes an experimental proposal to allow TCP senders
to restart data transfer quickly following an idle or less active period.
This approach is expected to benefit applications that unable to send
at the maximum rate permitted by the congestion window for some reasons.
As a result, it aims to provide incentives for long-lived connections and
to remove ad-hoc tweaks in some applications that try to maintain a large
cwnd for future data transmissions.
The approach can be viewed as an updated version of RFC2861 and it obsoletes
Working Group Summary
The draft has been discussed for around 4 years. There has been explicit support
for the draft since the beginning. Main discussion points were some detailed
mechanisms in the logic that are related to estimating path capacity and
preserving congestion window size during applications are idle or less active.
The initial intended status of the draft was PS, but it has been changed to
Experimental as a result of the discussions.
Linux kernel has the codes which address the same issue. Their algorithms
are slightly different from the document. There had been discussions between
the linux kernel implementers and the document authors; however, they haven't
reached the consensus to replace the existing kernel codes until more solid
evidences are found.
The WG's conclusion is to publish the draft as an experimental and explore
its efficiency and feasibility of this approach.
The document has been reviewed and discussed by multiple participants in the WG.
Some discussions points raised by reviewers are listed in Section 9.1.
The patches to FreeBSD and Linux kernel have been made by the efforts from the
authors and other group.
Yoshifumi Nishida is the Document Shepherd for this document.
The Responsible 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
I have reviewed the document and suggested some editorial chages.
I concluded it is ready to be published.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
I have no concern about it.
(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
There is no need for another reviews.
(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
I don't have specific concern on this 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.
Yes. Each author has confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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 mature during four-years discussions and is supported well.
We have seen various positive feedbacks in the WG meetings and the ML.
I believe the consensus is solid and clear.
(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 one has indicated discontent.
(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
No issue was found by idnits 2.13.02
(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 is required for this document.
(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.
The document will obsolete RFC2861 and it is listed in the header and the abstract, also discussed in the following sections.
(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 IANA considerations for the document.
(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.
(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.
The document contains no formal language.