Skip to main content

A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-roadmap-06

Yes

(Allison Mankin)
(Jon Peterson)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-03-16) Unknown
It might be good to update:
   RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
   Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998)

      This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6-
      specific connection table.  The rest of 2012 holds for any IP
      version.
Into:
   RFC 2452 S: "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
   Transmission Control Protocol" (December 1998)

      This document [RFC2452] augments RFC 2012 by adding an IPv6-
      specific connection table.  The rest of 2012 holds for any IP
      version. It is now obsoleted by RFC 4022.

I.e. add a sentence to make clear it has been obsoletetd by 4022.
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-03-13) Unknown
From Gen-ART review by Spencer Dawkins:

- In Section 3.1, the following text seems confusing:

  Since TCP traditionally (in the absence
  of ECN) uses losses to infer congestion, there is a rather intimate
  coupling between congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms.

Isn't it more correct to say that TCP always infers congestion from losses, and may also infer congestion from ECN? The current text makes it seem like TCP does not use losses to infer congestion when ECN is being used - I wish this could be true, but it's not. 

BC: I think the phrasing could be better, although I won't insist. For example,
   TCP traditionally treats lost packets as indicating congestive loss,
   and cannot distinguish between congestive loss and loss due to
   transmission errors. Even when ECN is in in use, there is a rather 
   intimate coupling between congestion control and loss recovery mechanisms.
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-03-16) Unknown
  Section 3.3 says:
  >
  > A draft that is currently in the RFC Editor's
  > queue for publication [tcpmd5app] deprecates TCP MD5 for use
  > outside BGP.
  >
  This document has been published, and the wording of the
  sentence does not allow a simple substitution.  Please
  reword.  I propose:
  >
  > RFC 4278 deprecates the use of TCP MD5 outside BGP [RFC4278].

  Please change [tcpmd5app] to reference RFC 4278.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown