[AAA-DOCTORS] FW: Evaluation: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt to Informational RFC

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 04 June 2009 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B902E28C2A4; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YuQyD+e-hAJn; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED293A6C16; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,305,1241409600"; d="scan'208";a="172901076"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2009 06:53:00 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2009 06:53:00 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:52:41 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040175772B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Evaluation: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AcnlAdUPMdhx8wHmSXCAk/2FtfAJDwAAItvA
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: aaa-doctors@ietf.org, ops-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] FW: Evaluation: draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: aaa-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: AAA Doctors E-mail List <aaa-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aaa-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:aaa-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:53:04 -0000

 


A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-floyd-tcpm-ackcc-05.txt


The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

   This document describes a possible congestion control mechanism for
   acknowledgement traffic (ACKs) in TCP.  The document specifies an
   end-to-end acknowledgement congestion control mechanism for TCP that
   uses participation from both TCP hosts, the TCP data sender and the
   TCP data receiver.

   This acknowledgement congestion control mechanism is being specified
   for further evaluation by the network community.

Working Group Summary

   (This document is an independent submission to the RFC Editor.)

Document Quality

   (This document is an independent submission to the RFC Editor.)

Personnel

   Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) reviewed this document
   for the IESG.

RFC Editor Note

   The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
   TCPM, but this does not prevent publishing.

IESG Note

      The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF,
      and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a
      published IETF work.  This RFC is not a candidate for any level of
      Internet Standard.  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the
      fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that
      the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such
      things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate
      interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to
      publish this document at its discretion.  Readers of this RFC
      should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation
      and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.