[Iccrg] Call for reviewers for CTCP

[[e-mail] (Michael Welzl)]

SECOND CALL - so far we received nothing! are there no volunteers
on this list?   (i.e. isn't there anyone else who wants to submit
submit a proposal one day?   :-D   )

Cheers,
Michael

PS: as has been rightly pointed out, that "statement on safeness"
which I referred to in this email is in fact not in the abstract
of this draft but in the conclusion section


On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:08 +0200, Michael Welzl wrote:
> 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-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-00.txt:
> http://research.microsoft.com/users/dthaler/draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-00.txt
> 
> for which it was requested that the draft would eventually become
> a WG item of the TCPM Working Group.
> 
> The authors recently sent a few related pointers to the list; if
> you lost that message, it's here in the archive:
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/2007-July/000249.html
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg