Request to publish: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench as a PS.

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

This email includes a write-up of the IETF TSV WG document on 
"Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages".  This write-up will be 
forwarded to our ADs with a recommendation for publication as an RFC. 
Thanks to all who contributed to this work.

Best wishes,

Gorry (TSVWG Co-Chair)

---

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Document: Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages 
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench-03.txt>
Intended status: Proposed Standards
Shepherd: G Fairhurst (TSVWG Co-Chair)

This version is dated September 17, 2008.

   (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
         Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
         document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
         version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Gorry Fairgurst) will be the document shepherd and I judge that
this document is ready for publication.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
         and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
         any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
         have been performed?

The document has been reviewed in WGLC, and was discussed at TSVWG 
meetings.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
         e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
         AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
         issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
         been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
         disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
         this issue.

I have no concerns with deprecation of this specific method. The
method has for a long time not been used in the general Internet
and lacks the safeguards needed for any future endpoint congestion
notification. Therefore it was concluded that the previously defined
mechanism can not be usefully used in the Internet.

This was supported by the WGLC on 18th October 2011, which focussed
on the the use of RFC 2119 keywords. All issues were resolved buy
publication of draft -03 on 22nd December 2011.

   (1.e) 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?

This review lead to refinement of RFC 2119 wording, but to no
significant changes in the intended scope. There were no known issues
with publication of this document.

   (1.f) 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
         entered into the ID Tracker.)

There are no known objections to publication.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
         document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
         and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
         not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
         met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
         Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
         informative? 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
         strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
         that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
         so, list these downward references to support the Area
         Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
         of the document? If the document specifies protocol
         extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
         registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
         the document creates a new registry, does it define the
         proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
         procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
         reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
         document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
         conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
         can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA change is simply to mark a registry with a note.

   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
         document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
         code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
         an automated checker?

Not applicable.

   (1.k) 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 provides a Standards-Track document that formally
deprecates the use of ICMP Source Quench messages by all IETF-defined
transport protocols. This formally updates RFC 792, RFC 1122, and
RFC 1812.  Additionally, it requests that the status of RFC 1016
be changed to "Historic".

      Working Group Summary

This document arrived at the TSV WG following related discussions
in the TCPM WG. The decision to adopt this reflected current
deployment experience, and that any update should be directed
to all IETF transports. There was consensus to adopt this and
it has received review and discussion in the WG. The WG supports
publication of this document.

      Document Quality

The document standardises current understanding of how congestion
control should be designed  and the new language reflects the lack
of actual use of this mechanism in deployed network
and current best practice.
-- 
Prof Gorry Fairhurst, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland,
No SC013683.