The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG > (tsvwg) to consider the following document: > - 'Byte and Packet Congestion Notification' > <draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-09.txt> as Best Current Practice > > 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-03-07. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This document has a rather long history in TSVWG, and IMHO deserves to be published as is, but not as a Best Current Practice. Fundamentally, it updates RFC 2309 (an Informational document) to deprecate a practice which seems essentially unused, and goes into detail appropriate to an academic paper about the theoretical basis for doing this. According to the document writeup I find in the datatracker: ] ] This document is intended as BCP. (This was discussed at IETF-81 and that ] the status changed from Informational to BCP, because the draft provides ] guidance to implementors and people configuring routers and hosts). I cannot find any minutes for that WG meeting. I am willing to believe Gorry that such a recommendation happened at that meeting (where I was not present), but I do not find it to have been discussed on-list at all. I do not agree that its major purpose is to provide such advice, nor do I see how "implementors and people configuring" would be likely to get clear advice from a 43-page document that reads like an academic paper. For one example: > Abstract > This document provides recommendations of best current practice for > dropping or marking packets using active queue management (AQM) such > as random early detection (RED) or pre-congestion notification (PCN). > We give three strong recommendations: (1) packet size should be taken > into account when transports read and respond to congestion > indications... "Packet size should be taken into account when transports read and respond to congestion indications" is simply too vague. There has been on-list discussion of what this might mean; but it has not resulted in clear, concise advice to implementors. In no sense do I believe it worth holding up this document any longer to add "clear advice" -- I believe that would only add years to the delay. The document deserves to be published, but with Informational status so folks don't spend their time trying to interpret its "advice". -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>