Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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 is Proposed Standard. This is the proper state since
the document specifies a loss recover mechanism, which is implemented and
and has a substantial deployment. Therefore Experimental is not appropriate.
This explicitly decided by the working group.
The type indicated in the title page header is 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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies a loss recovery algorithm for TCP, which detects losses
more efficiently than the widely used duplicate acknowledgement based
algorithm, when there are application-limited flights of data, lost
retransmissions, or data packet reordering events.

Working Group Summary:

There is very strong support for this document in the working group.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

The core mechanisms described in the document are implemented in FreeBSD,
Linux, and Windows. They are in active use on these platforms. RACK can also be
used by other transport protocols. QUIC loss recovery uses the same ideas and
there exists also an implementation for SCTP within a simulation environment.
The document got substantial comments during the first working group last Call,
which were addressed and a second working group last call made sure that the
working group is fine with the changes.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Michael Tüxen (tuexen@fh-muenster.de).
The Responsible Area Director is Martin Duke (martin.h.duke@gmail.com).

(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.

I read the document to especially ensure that the description of the algorithm
allows not only implementations in TCP stacks but provides enough background to
implement it for other transport protocols. This 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?

No.

(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.

There are no issues.

(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?

All authors have confirmed that all IPR disclosures required have already been
filed.

(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 are found by
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-tcpm-rack&submit=draft&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=

(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 WG consensus is very strong and the document is supported by a large number
of key contributors of the WG.

(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.

Two false positives are reported:
* Pseudocode is detected as code due to comments. Therefore the too suggests to
use <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>, but this is not appropriate, since it is
pseudo code. * A problem with references is reported due to the fact that the
title of RFC 8174 contains the string RFC 2119.

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

Not required, since none of the above is used in the document.

(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.

No, this document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 8126).

There are no IANA actions required by this document. This is stated clearly in
the IANA section.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No such reviews where made, since the document does not contain sections
written in a formal language.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?

The document does not contain a YANG module.
Back