Skip to main content

Forward RTO-Recovery (F-RTO): An Algorithm for Detecting Spurious Retransmission Timeouts with TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2008-12-16
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-12-16
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-15
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-15
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-15
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-12-15
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-13
04 Sam Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Love Astrand.
2008-12-11
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-11
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-11
04 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-12-11
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-12-11
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-12-11
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-12-11
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
> unnecessarily an inappropriately restarts the ACK clock while there

s/an/and/?
2008-12-11
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-11
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-11
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-12-11
04 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-10
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-10
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-10
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-09
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-06
04 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
As noted in the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia, please expand the RTO
  and MSS acronyms at first occurrence.
2008-12-06
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-11-18
04 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2008-12-11 from 2008-12-04 by Lars Eggert
2008-11-17
04 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2008-12-04 from 2008-12-18 by Lars Eggert
2008-11-17
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2008-11-17
04 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2008-11-17
04 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2008-11-17
04 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2008-11-13
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-11
04 Sam Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand
2008-11-11
04 Sam Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand
2008-11-10
04 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-10-30
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-10-30
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-10-30
04 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2008-12-18 from 2008-12-04 by Lars Eggert
2008-10-30
04 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Lars Eggert
2008-10-30
04 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2008-10-30
04 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2008-10-30
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-10-30
04 (System) Last call text was added
2008-10-30
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-10-30
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-10-30
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-04.txt
2008-09-22
04 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2008-09-22
04 Lars Eggert Needs a minor update to fix some nits (e.g., actually say that it obsoletes 4138, etc.)
2008-09-22
04 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Wesley Eddy (wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov) (TCPM co-chair) is the shepherd.' added by Lars Eggert
2008-09-19
04 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2008-09-19
04 Lars Eggert AD review happened during WG LC.
2008-09-19
04 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Wesley Eddy (wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov) (TCPM co-chair) is the shepherd.

' added by Lars Eggert
2008-09-16
04 Amy Vezza
>    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of …
>    (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 4138, 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 has supported this actively in the past.  The recent WG activity
around this document has been more passive, and its last call did not
result in feedback either for or against it.



>    (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.



>    (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, with the exception
of one which is a TCPM working group draft that has finished working
group last call and is simply a "bis" document to an existing RFC.



>    (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?



The document has an IANA considerations section, and has no other IANA
considerations.



>    (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:

  This document advances the F-RTO algorithm previously-published in
  RFC 4138 from Experimental to Proposed Standard.  The changes from
  RFC 4138 are described in an appendix, but mainly consist of
  clarifications.

Working Group Summary

  The working group saw that there were good experiences with F-RTO
  trials, and decided that it was reasonable to move it from
  Experimental to Proposed Standard.  The working group has accepted
  all of the changes that the authors have made without much
  controversy.

Document Quality

  The document was reviewed for quality by a fair number of TCPM
  WG members.
2008-09-16
04 Amy Vezza Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested
2008-09-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-03.txt
2008-07-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-02.txt
2007-11-18
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-01.txt
2007-06-12
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc4138bis-00.txt