Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis
Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi> Wed, 08 May 2013 10:13 UTC
Return-Path: <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864E621F90CD for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CtxrjMugTqHI for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jenni1.inet.fi (mta-out.inet.fi [195.156.147.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438C621F905C for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 03:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.70] (80.223.92.46) by jenni1.inet.fi (8.5.140.03) (authenticated as saropa-1) id 5163EC5601AD8CD1 for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 8 May 2013 13:13:08 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <21806_1367226335_517E37DF_21806_96_1_FCF05C2E-7414-4F1E-B63C-EFC5C94812E4@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 13:13:08 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C2259F9-4210-439F-9C0E-E5AA2E753DF5@iki.fi>
References: <21806_1367226335_517E37DF_21806_96_1_FCF05C2E-7414-4F1E-B63C-EFC5C94812E4@iki.fi>
To: "tcpm (tcpm@ietf.org)" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 10:13:15 -0000
Reminder: the WG last call for rfc1323bis ends on Monday 13th. Below is an initial draft write-up. Please let me know if you think it does not present things correctly. Note that the below write-up is only a draft, and can change until we request publication. - Pasi (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This draft replaces earlier RFC 1323 that also was a Proposed Standard. The title page header currently says "Standards Track". (TBD: title page should be updated to indicate "Proposed Standard" as intended status) (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document replaces RFC 1323, making minor fixes and clarifications to the original document. The document specifies three performance enhancing extensions to TCP, using two TCP options. The first is window scale option, that allows representation of receive window sizes of up to 2^30 bytes using the 16-bit window field. The second option is TCP timestamps option that allows round-trip time measurement on each TCP segment, and third is an algorithm to detect and reject old duplicate segments that happen to match the current TCP window (Protect Against Wrapped Sequence numbers). Working Group Summary This document has been a chartered TCPM working group item since year 2008. It has not been under significant controversy, but the progress has been slow because of earlier lack of WG (and authoring) cycles. During the last 12 months, with the help of an additional co-editor, the progress on the draft became faster. Document Quality The predecessor of this document, RFC 1323, was published in 1992, and is deployed in most TCP implementations. This document includes fixes and clarifications based on the gained deployment experience. The recent versions of the document have been reviewed and discussed by multiple working group participants. Personnel Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. Reponsible Area Director TBA (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has read the latest version of the document and the recent mailing list discussion, and thinks the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Document shepherd does not have concerns about the document (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. To be confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed on this document (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The recent versions of the document were actively discussed on the TCPM mailing list, by several members of the community, for example regarding whether negotiating the use of timestamps should be allowed later in the TCP connection. While the current approach may not have been unanimously supported in the past discussions, the WG chairs believe the current version represents the rough consensus of the WG. There were also some opinions suggesting that some of the benefits could be achieved with less TCP option overhead. The WG chairs concluded that considering the original scope of the document (fixes and clarifications to RFC 1323), and its large existing deployment base, it is important to publish the current document, but keep the discussion open for future enhancements. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Few nits found -- TBD: authors to fix before submitting (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no IANA considerations, even though the document specifies two TCP options, because the needed numbers have already been allocated when publishing RFC 1323. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registeries needed. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No automated checks needed.
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis John Leslie
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Scheffenegger, Richard
- [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis Pasi Sarolahti