TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification
draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-06
Yes
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-22)
Unknown
I support Russ's discuss on the importance of a change summary. Having diffed the RFC and the ID, this appears to be a very significant revision covering many issues. The change summary will help ensure readers find the appropriate changes. It would be nice if the security considerations section was updated with some examples. The document punts most security issues to the "specific transport protocol and its authentication mechanisms" and that is probably appropriate. However, I would assume that the details have been worked out for TCP since publication of 3448, and that references to those solutions could easily be included. That would be helpful in my opinion.