Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages
draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench-06

[Ballot comment]
This is probably late in the process, but I think that such a document should have been last-called with the OPSAWG as well and also with some of the operators fora, to make sure that there are no critical operator tools depending on the deprecated option, and for the operators to have a prior warning about the changes in the implementations resulting from the approval of this update.

[Ballot comment]
I found a minor error:

  o  Processing of ICMP Source Quench messages by routers has been
      deprecated for more than 20 years [RFC1812].

Actually, it's less than 17 years: RFC 1812 was published in June 1995.

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
update needed to reflect IETF LC comments prior to going into IESG Evaluation

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages) to Proposed Standard and RFC 1016 to Historic


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document formally deprecates the use of ICMP Source Quench
  messages by transport protocols, formally updating RFC 792, RFC 1122,
  and RFC 1812.  Additionally, it requests that the status of RFC 1016
  be changed to "Historic".




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Document: Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages

Intended status: Proposed Standards
Shepherd: G Fairhurst (TSVWG Co-Chair)

This version is dated September 17, 2008.

(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?

I (Gorry Fairgurst) will be the document shepherd and I judge that
this document 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 reviewed in WGLC, and was discussed at TSVWG
meetings.

(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.

I have no concerns with deprecation of this specific method. The
method has for a long time not been used in the general Internet
and lacks the safeguards needed for any future endpoint congestion
notification. Therefore it was concluded that the previously defined
mechanism can not be usefully used in the Internet.

This was supported by the WGLC on 18th October 2011, which focussed
on the the use of RFC 2119 keywords. All issues were resolved buy
publication of draft -03 on 22nd December 2011.

(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?

This review lead to refinement of RFC 2119 wording, but to no
significant changes in the intended scope. There were no known issues
with publication of this document.

(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.)

There are no known objections to publication.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

Yes.

(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].

Yes.

(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 [RFC5226]. 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 IANA change is simply to mark a registry with a note.

(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?

Not applicable.

(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

This document provides a Standards-Track document that formally
deprecates the use of ICMP Source Quench messages by all IETF-defined
transport protocols. This formally updates RFC 792, RFC 1122, and
RFC 1812. Additionally, it requests that the status of RFC 1016
be changed to "Historic".

Working Group Summary

This document arrived at the TSV WG following related discussions
in the TCPM WG. The decision to adopt this reflected current
deployment experience, and that any update should be directed
to all IETF transports. There was consensus to adopt this and
it has received review and discussion in the WG. The WG supports
publication of this document.

Document Quality

The document standardises current understanding of how congestion
control should be designed and the new language reflects the lack
of actual use of this mechanism in deployed network
and current best practice.