Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer
draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis-02

[Ballot comment]
I notice the file name for the document is draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis
(not draft-ietf...).  I can't tell from the history or the document writeup,
so may I assume the document was formally adopted as a working group
work item and went through a working group last call?

[Ballot comment]
1. I support Adrian's DISCUSS.

2. In the Introduction Section:

> In some situations it may be beneficial for a TCP sender to be more
  conservative than the algorithms detailed in this document allow.
  However, a TCP MUST NOT be more aggressive than the following
  algorithms allow.


s/TCP MUST NOT/TCP sender MUST NOT/

Also this paragraph should probably be moved to a later section, as it is not common practice to include key-worded statements in the Introduction, and certainly not before the paragraph that explains the role of keywords notations.

[Ballot discuss]
If the intention is to obsolete 2988 please indicate whether 2988 should be moved to Historic.  The RFC editor does not automatically move an obsoleted RFC to Historic.  By answer this question we can provide clear guidance to the RFC editor.

[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's discuss.

Sec 6: r/This document requires a TCP to wait/This document requires a TCP *sender* to wait ?

As noted in the SECDIR review there really needs to be a more overt homage to the security considerations in 5681.  Something like the following would suffice:

  Refer to [RFC5681] for TCP congestion control security considerations.

[Ballot discuss]
If the intention is to obsolete 2988 please indicate whether 2988 should be moved to Historic.  The RFC editor does not automatically move an obsoleted RFC to Historic.

[Ballot discuss]
I would like to ballot "Yes" on this document, but the following small issue needs to be resolved first. It can probably be handled through an RFC Editor note.

It is odd, IMHO, that a bis makes such small reference to the RFC it is
bis'ing. I think you are completely replacing RFC 2988, so I would
expect:
- obsoletes in the document header
- a note on obsoletes in the abstract and introduction
- a short section somewhere "Changes from RFC 2988" (I can probably
  deduce this from the notes in the text, but it would be useful to
  write the section.)

Are you also intending that this document updates RFC 1122?

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:  (Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer'
  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 2011-04-20. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis/

  (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) is the document shepherd.  He
has personally reviewed this version and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG 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 had review in the TCPM working group.  The TCPM
working group last call did not generate feedback, however the
document makes only a small number of changes to RFC 2988 which were
discussed in the mailing list and in face-to-face meetings with
reasonable support and no resistance from the working group.


  (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.


No concerns.



  (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? 


There has been a reasonable amount of support from several individuals for
this document.  There has not been resistance to any of the document's
content following discussions on the mailing list and in TCPM meetings.


  (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.)


No.


  (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?


There are a small number of editorial formatting issues that the RFC
Editor is asked to handle.


  (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 are properly split.



  (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 Considerations are present and specify no actions for IANA.



  (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
        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.


From abstract:

  This document defines the standard algorithm that Transmission
  Control Protocol (TCP) senders are required to use to compute and
  manage their retransmission timer.  It expands on the discussion in
  section 4.2.3.1 of RFC 1122 and upgrades the requirement of
  supporting the algorithm from a SHOULD to a MUST.



    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?

Nothing exceptional occurred during the working group process for this
document.


    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?

Implementations of the methods described in this document have been
running on the Internet for many years.  The change in the initial
RTO parameter from 3 s to 1 s has been implemented to lesser extent,
though no significant issues have been found that would block wider
deployment and Appendix A of the document contains substantial
motivations and analysis of the change.