Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms
RFC 5033

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Magnus Westerlund) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-22 for -)
If this is not a binding guideline, I don't understand why we are publishing as a BCP rather than informational.

However the text is good so I'm not going to hold a discuss.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-22)
  The Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo uncovered the following
  IDNits tool complaints:

  ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
     longest one being 1 character in excess of 72.

  ** There are 70 instances of lines with control characters in the

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-22 for -)
When reading this, it wondered if the 2914 reference should be normative. I don't care one way or the other but might be worth 10 seconds of thought.

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-17 for -)
I am not sure why section 5 (Conclusions) is needed, it looks like a leftover from previous versions of the document. Also why is it using the term 'researchers' instead of 'authors of congestion control schemes' for example?

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss, No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-06-06)
I believe the document is a bit weak in its choice of words in some areas for a BCP (e.g., rather than "we would hope the guidelines in this document inform" simply state "the guidelines in this document inform").