Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms
RFC 5033
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Record, Discuss) No Objection
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").
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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
document.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection