Document authors, WG, AD, ...
The latest round of changes address appears to address all the concerns
raised during WGLC.
I am pleased therefore to announce that this document has now been
passed to our AD for consideration by the IESG to publish as an
Experimental RFC.
Many thanks to all who helped in completing the CCID-4 work in the IETF
DCCP working group. We will soon have 3 CCID's for DCCP.
Ideas for new CCIDs and future work are most welcome!
Gorry Fairhurst
draft-ietf-dccp-ccid4-04.txt
As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. 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?
The WGLC was managed by Gorry Fairhurst (co-chair), who reviewed this document.
The Document Shepherd is also Gorry Fairhurst.
(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?
No. The document is ready for publication.
(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.
(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.
(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?
The related CC algorithm has been published as RFC 4828, updated by RFC 5348, recently published by the WG.
The document received significant feedback resulting from WG discussion in earlier versions.
CCID-4 was discussed at IETF-74 (San Francisco) after WGLC had been discussed on the list. A two week WGLC was started on 27th March 2009. There was support for publication and no opposition. During the LC, comments were received from the Chair, Lars Eggert (at WG meeting), and Dr Arjuna Sathiaseelan.
(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
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?
It does pass the ID checklist.
(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?
Done.
(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.
This document specifies a profile for Congestion Control Identifier
4, the Small-Packet variant of TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC), in
the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). CCID 4 is for
experimental use, and uses TFRC-SP [RFC4828], a variant of TFRC
designed for applications that send small packets. CCID 4 is
considered experimental because TFRC-SP is itself experimental, and
is not proposed for widespread deployment in the global Internet at
this time. The goal for TFRC-SP is to achieve roughly the same
bandwidth in bits per second (bps) as a TCP flow using packets of up
to 1500 bytes but experiencing the same level of congestion. CCID 4
is for use for senders that send small packets and would like a TCP-
friendly sending rate, possibly with Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN), while minimizing abrupt rate changes.
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?
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?
(end)
