Subject: [tcpm] Publication requested for Proportional Rate Reduction

From: Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:15:19 -0500

For information: publication request for PRR has been sent. The write-up is below.

- 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 for publication as Experimental
        RFC, as indicated on the title page. During the working group
        last call it was proposed that the document should be
        published as Proposed Standard, but after the mailing list
        discussion that followed the chairs concluded there is no
        strong consensus to change the status (but no strong
        opposition, either). Also the document authors supported
        keeping the document as Experimental.

(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 describes an algorithm to improve the accuracy
	of the amount of data sent by TCP during loss recovery. The
	existing TCP recovery algorithms can make excess window
	adjustments in some situations, such as in the presence of
	heavy losses, and may result in abrupt TCP behavior in the
	form of packet bursts or increased risk of
	timeouts. Proportional Rate Reduction aims to minimize the
	needed window adjustments, to result in more stable TCP
	congestion control behavior in the presence of losses.

Working Group Summary

	The document was adopted as Experimental TCPM working group
	item by clear working group consensus, and no opinions against
	it have been raised during its progress or in the working
	group last call.

Document Quality

	The algorithm specified in the document has been implemented
	in Linux and integrated to the main kernel distribution. The
	algorithm has also been evaluated through measurements, and
	the evaluation results reported in a paper published in the
	IMC'11 conference. Different versions of the document have
	been thoroughly reviewed by TCPM working group members.

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 document, including the
	comments and the latest version, and thinks the document is
	ready for publication without further changes.

(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 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.

(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 was reviewed and supported by multiple
	individuals, and no one has raised opinions against it. The
	chairs concluded that there is a solid WG consensus behind the
	document.

(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.

	ID nits produced two warnings, but these appear to be
	unnecessary. There are informative references to RFC 3517 that
	was recently obsoleted by RFC 6675, but these are justified,
	because they concern evaluations that were made prior to
	publication of RFC 6675.

(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.

	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).

	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.

	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.