Thanks for the note. I'd like to respond on the question of intended status. I hope this may allow others to also comment. The discussion on the proposed milestone was at IETF-81, Quebec City, http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tsvwg/minutes?item=minutes81.html. This was followed-up with the ADs, with a result that the document milestone proposed BCP status. I do note that this updates an Informational draft, and do not know of other normative dependencies. Now is the correct time to check the standards status if this needs to be reviewed. As I understand, this is an AD decision. Gorry (tsvwg Co-Chair) > 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> >