Re: [tcpm] publication request for draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-06

Hi, all,

One point below...

On 11/19/2012 11:25 AM, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
 > Hello folks,
 >
 > Publication request for iw10 has been sent to IESG.
 > I've attached the write-up for the draft below.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > --
 > Yoshifumi
 >
 > 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > (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?
 >
 >
 >     This document describes a proposal to increase initial window 
size of TCP
 >     at most 10 segments. As it is indicated in the title page header,
 > the consensus
 >     of the WG is to publish this document as an Experimental RFC.
 >     We will need further experiments for this proposal to be advanced
 > as described
 >     in Section 12.
 >
 >
 > (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:
 >
 > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
 > introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
 > there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
 >
 >
 >     This document describes an experimental proposal to increase
 > initial congestion window
 >     of TCP to at most 10 segments as well as a fall-back mechanism to
 > limit any negative
 >     effects in limited buffer or bandwidth situations.
 >     It also provides guidelines to enable/disable this features in
 > addition to some metrics
 >     to monitor the effect of this.
 >
 >
 > Working Group Summary:
 >
 > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
 > was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
 > where the consensus was particularly rough?
 >
 >
 >     There has been dominant opinions in the WG to increase initial
 > window size of TCP.
 >     Question was whether we have a single updated value, or increasing
 > the value gradually
 >     with a certain schedule, or defining a mechanics to adjust initial
 > window size over time.
 >     We have explored several possibilities and eventually having a
 > single updated value
 >     has become the consensus of the WG as other methods have some
 > difficulties for
 >     large-scale deployment. Some of the approach in other methods have
 > been merged into the
 >     draft during this process. The consensus was clear as no opinion
 > against this proposal
 >     has been raised since then.
 >
 >
 > Document Quality:
 >
 > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
 > number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
 > Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
 > thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
 > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
 > MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
 > (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
 > request posted?
 >
 >
 >     Linux has already incorporated this proposal in the main kernel 
distribution.

It is important to note that this deployment did not include any 
automatic or other reporting of errors, so if it is causing problems we 
simply do not know.

As a result, this deployment does NOT follow the recommendations of this 
document, esp. in Sec. 12.

Joe

 >     This document was reviewed by various people and has been discussed
 > in the WG for
 >     nearly three years. The authors have provided results from their
 > extensive experiments
 >     with a larger initial window. They also provided data to address
 > questions and concerns
 >     by reviewers. In addition, there have been some related experiments
 > by other TCPM contributors,
 >     mostly based on simulation. The document has been updated based on
 > feedback from the community.
 >
 >     I believe the authors did fairly extensive work for an experimental
 > RFC, even if valid questions
 >     are still to be answered. The remaining questions, which need
 > further experiments, are hard
 >     to address by the authors alone. Appendix A in the document
 > contains the list for major
 >     discussion points of the draft.
 >
 >
 > Personnel:
 >
 > Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
 >
 >     Yoshifumi Nishida is the Document Shepherd for this document.
 >     The Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     I've reviewed the documents and made several editorial suggestions
 > in order to enhance the
 >     readability of the drafts. I believe the quality of this draft is
 > matured enough to be
 >     published.
 >
 > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
 > breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
 >
 >     I have no concern about it.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     There is no need for particular reviews.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     I have no concerns with 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?
 >
 >     Yes, each authors has confirmed this.
 >
 > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
 > so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
 > disclosures.
 >
 >     No.
 >
 > (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 document is widely supported as we have seen positive comments
 > from various participants
 >     in the WG meetings as well as the ML. The consensus was solid and 
clear.
 >
 >
 > (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 one has indicated discontent.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     ID nits gives the following errors and warnings. I've put my 
comments below.
 >
 >
 >     ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the 
longest one
 >         being 1 character in excess of 72.
 >
 >     -> I think we can fix this through editing process
 >
 >
 >     -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3390, 
but the
 >       abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention 
RFC3390
 >       though, so this could be OK.
 >
 >     -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5681, 
but the
 >       abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
 >
 >     -> I think these are minor points. As it is explained in the 
Introduction
 >       and the draft tries to update a rather minor portion of RFC3390
 > and RFC5681.
 >
 >
 >     == Unused Reference: 'RFC6077' is defined on line 844, but no 
explicit
 >       reference was found in the text
 >
 >     -> It is referred in the text. This might be a bug for ID nits?
 >
 >     -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2414
 >       (Obsoleted by RFC 3390)
 >
 >     -> This is intentional.
 >
 >
 > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
 > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 >
 >     I believe no formal review is needed.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     This draft contains a proposal for adjusting initial window after
 > SYN, SYN/ACK
 >     retransmission, which will update RFC3390 and RFC5681. This is
 > described in the Abstract
 >     and Introduction and Section 2 explains the motivation.
 >
 > (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).
 >
 >     The document does not involve any IANA considerations.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     There is no need to require expert review for future allocations.
 >
 > (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.
 >
 >     The document contains no formal language.
 > _______________________________________________
 > tcpm mailing list
 > tcpm@ietf.org
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm