[Iccrg] Call for reviewers for CUBIC
michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at (Michael Welzl) Thu, 30 August 2007 08:32 UTC
From: michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:32:51 +0000
Subject: [Iccrg] Call for reviewers for CUBIC
Message-ID: <1188459108.3723.59.camel@pc105-c703.uibk.ac.at>
X-Date: Thu Aug 30 08:32:51 2007
Dear all, As you probably know, the ICCRG has agreed to obtain reviews on experimental congestion control proposals before they are brought to the IETF. While the competence to actually decide about acceptance or not is with the IETF, it is expected that they will take our reviews into account. This process is outlined here: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-tsv-alt-cc.txt Right now, we are looking for reviews on draft-rhee-tcpm-cubic-00.txt: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/attachment/wiki/ICCRG_cubic/draft-rhee-tcpm-cubic-00.txt (note the small "Original format" link at the bottom if you want plain ascii) We would like to get feedback within 2 1/2 months (earlier if possible). If you're interested in doing a review, please send a note to Wes and me. Reviews should be sent to the list; while we explicitly encourage open reviews, you can also directly send them to us for anonymization before reflecting them out to the list, if desired. Reviewers are strongly advised to: * read draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04.txt * consider not only the draft alone, but also papers referenced therein, where the authors should have carried out an evaluation of their mechanism, including studies which show the impact of the new mechanism on standard TCP. When looking at such studies, this document is recommended to be used for guidance: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09.txt There's now a small page on related resources at: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/ICCRG_cubic Suggestions are welcome, just let me know if I should add some to this page. One main conclusion that we are looking for is whether you agree with the statement on safeness which is included in the abstract of the draft (and obviously, we'd like to know how you arrived at your decision). The requirement for including such a statement is specified in section 2 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04: Each alternate congestion control algorithm published is required to include a statement in the abstract indicating whether or not the proposal is considered safe for use on the Internet. Each alternate congestion control algorithm published is also required to include a statement in the abstract describing environments where the protocol is not recommended for deployment. There may be environments where the protocol is deemed *safe* for use, but still is not *recommended* for use because it does not perform well for the user. We expect reviewers to have thoroughly read all the necessary material. Generally, the more careful, complete and descriptive a review is the more credence it will be given. Thanks in advance to anyone who volunteers! Cheers, Michael
- [Iccrg] Call for reviewers for CUBIC Michael Welzl