Hi all,
We have now requested publication of draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-05 as
an Experimental RFC. The document shepherd writeup is provided below.
Many thanks to the authors and everyone else who helped by commenting
the document!
- Pasi
------
Quick-Start for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-05
(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 Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. The shepherd has read the
latest version of the document and believes this 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?
WGLC for version 03 of this document to go for Experimental was
announced by Tom Phelan on DCCP mailing list on 11-May-2009, and it
ended 29-May-2009. The WGLC was forwarded also to TSVWG mailing list.
During the WGLC comments were received by Pasi Sarolahti (who read the
document before named as DCCP chair) and Michael Scharf (who has
implemented Quick-Start for Linux TCP) from TSVWG. The earlier version
of the document was reviewed by several people and the comments have
been addressed. The shepherd has no concerns and believes the document
is appropriately reviewed.
(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 WG has consensus on publishing this document, and the shepherd
believes that the DCCP community understands and agrees with it.
(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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
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].
References have been split into normative and informative. All
normatively referenced documents are completed RFCs. No downward
references.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG
Evaluation?
Yes.
(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 the use of the Quick-Start mechanism by the
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). The document
specifies general procedures applicable to all DCCP CCIDs and
specific procedures for the use of Quick-Start with DCCP CCID 2,
CCID 3 and CCID 4. Quick-Start enables a DCCP sender to cooperate
with Quick-Start routers along the end-to-end path to determine an
allowed sending rate at the start of a connection and, at times, in
the middle of a DCCP connection (e.g., after an idle or application-
limited period).
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?
The document has been produced and reviewed by the DCCP working group
and the WG is in agreement to publish this document. A copy of the WG
last-call note was also sent to the TSVWG mailing list.
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?
There are no implementations known of this specification, apart from
ns-2 simulations. The key authors of the original Quick-Start RFC 4782
have also reviewed the earlier version of the document, and the
document has addressed their comments.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is
the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
Document shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@xxxxxx>.
Responsible Area Director is Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>.
(end)
