TCP Congestion Control
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-07

[Ballot discuss]
Good to see this work done. Thanks.

A couple of important things to make sure this goes through the RFC Editor correctly.

This document should be marked obsoletes 2581.
This should also be noted in the Abstract.

The document should show an intended status.

These can all be handled in RFC Editor notes.

draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-04.txt

>    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of
>          the document and, in particular, does he or she believe
>          this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for
>          publication?



Wesley Eddy (wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov) (TCPM co-chair) is the shepherd.

I have read the document and believe it is ready for publication.



>    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
>          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>          have been performed?



The document has been publicly reviewed by many participants in the TCPM WG.
As a "bis" document, the majority of content is taken from the previously
published RFC 2581, which has been widely reviewed in the IETF and in
academic circles.  The shepherd does not have any concerns with it.



>    (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>          AAA, internationalization or XML?



No concerns.



>    (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
>          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>          this issue.



This document involves no IPR disclosure.

The document shepherd has no specific concerns about the document.



>    (1.e)  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 on this document is broad and solid.

>    (1.f)  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
>          entered into the ID Tracker.)



We are aware of no reasons this document would be appealed or anyone
who is unhappy with it.



>    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
>          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
>          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
>          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?



This document does not need MIB or URI reviews.

The document has several issues found by IDNITS, though all can be
corrected editorially.




>    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
>          informative?  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
>          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
>          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
>          so, list these downward references to support the Area
>          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].



The references have been split into 'normative' and 'non-normative'.

The normative references are all published RFCs.



>    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
>          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
>          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
>          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?





***There is a snarky comment in the IANA Considerations (section 8) that
should probably be removed before publication.***

The document has an IANA considerations section that correctly notes
that no IANA work is needed.




>    (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>          an automated checker?



N/A



>    (1.k)  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.
>
>          Working Group Summary
>              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>              example, was there controversy about particular points or
>              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>              rough?
>
>          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, 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?



Technical Summary:

  The congestion control algorithms described in RFC 2581 are widely
  implemented and used.  This document clarifies some specific points
  that have created questions for implementers in the past.

Working Group Summary

  The working group saw the need for this document based on a small
  number of commonly recurring questions about what is meant by certain
  wordings in RFC2581.  The working group was easily able to agree on
  the clarifications that this document provides.

Document Quality

  The document was reviewed for quality by a large number of TCPM
  WG members.