Subject: [tcpm] Write-up for draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-01

From: Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:58:46 +0200

Hi,

Below is the write-up for draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis-01 that we will pass to the TSV ADs with a request to publish the document as Proposed Standard.

Many thanks to authors and others who contributed in producing a solid document!

- 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?

        This document is requested to be published as Proposed
	Standard. It is an update to an existing Proposed Standard RFC
	3517. The intended status is NOT indicated on the title page
	of the current version of document.

(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 specifies a loss recovery algorithm based on the
	use of TCP SACK option that conforms to the current TCP
	congestion control requirements. It is a revision of Proposed
	Standard RFC 3517, to provide clarifications and certain
	performance enhancements to the earlier specified algorithm.

Working Group Summary

	The document was accepted for publication by the TCPM working
	group by clear consensus. The working group has extensively
	reviewed the earlier versions of the document, and the result
	represents the working group consensus. During the working
	group last call, there were no requests for changes and only
	comments were supportive of publication.

Document Quality

	The document has employed the long-standing experience of
	various people working closely with simulated and native TCP
	SACK implementations. The current TCP SACK implementations are
	believed to apply closely similar algorithm than what
	described in this document, even though there may be
	implementation-specific variations.

Personnel

	Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>.
	Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>.

(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.

	Document Shepherd has reviewed the latest version of the
	document and thinks the document is ready for publication
	without further changes (apart from nits described below).

(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.

	There are no concerns with the current version of 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.

(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 for this document, or its
	predecessor RFC 3517.

(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?

	Considering the past discussions and a succesful working group
	last call, the shepherd's view is that this document
	represents a strong WG consensus.

(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.

	* The title page is missing the intended status 
	* The document is missing IANA Considerations section (it has
	  no considerations, but the section should be included
	  nevertheless)
	* According to idnits, there are a few instances of too long
	  lines and control characters
	* Two references [RFC2018] and [RFC3042] are not referred to
	  from text

	These nits should be straightforward to fix before the final
	publication.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

	No formal reviews are required for this document.

(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 document is a revision of RFC 3517, and intended to
	replace the earlier RFC, as implied by the draft name
	(draft-ietf-tcpm-3517bis). This has not been otherwise
	explicitly indicated on the title page, abstract, or
	introduction, but the purpose is assumed to be understood by
	the TCPM participants.

(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 have any IANA considerations, and is
	currently missing the IANA considerations section.

(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 registries are required.

(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.

	There are no sections that would require formal validation.