TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification
draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2008-05-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-29
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-05-29
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-05-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-05-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-05-29
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-05-23
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22 |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I support Russ's discuss on the importance of a change summary. Having diffed the RFC and the ID, this appears to be a … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I support Russ's discuss on the importance of a change summary. Having diffed the RFC and the ID, this appears to be a … [Ballot comment] 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 and that references to those solutions could easily be included. That would be helpful in my opinion. |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I support Russ's discuss on the importance of a change summary. Having diffed the RFC and the ID, this appears to be a … [Ballot comment] 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 and that references to those solutions could easily be included. That would be helpful in my opinion. |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I support Russ's discuss on the importance of a change summary. Having diffed the RFC and the ID, this appears to be a … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-05-22
|
06 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] I agree that the detailed change history should not be included in the final RFC; however, it is very helpful to include … [Ballot discuss] I agree that the detailed change history should not be included in the final RFC; however, it is very helpful to include a summary of the changes since RFC 3448, which is obsoleted by this document once it is approved. Another appendix would be a fine solution. |
2008-05-21
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-05-20
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-05-20
|
06 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-05-19
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-05-19
|
06 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-05-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-05-22 by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2008-05-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-05-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-16
|
06 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-05-09
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Blake Ramsdell |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Blake Ramsdell |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Note]: 'Document shepherd: Gorry Fairhurst (gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk).' added by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Note]: 'The document shepherd is G. Fairhurst, DCCP WG Chair.' added by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Change Notice email list have been change to dccp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis@tools.ietf.org from dccp-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-02
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-05-02
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-05-02
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert |
2008-05-02
|
06 | Lars Eggert | AD review performed during WGLC. |
2008-05-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cindy Morgan |
2008-05-01
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of … (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 have read this document and I think this is ready for publication. The document shepherd is G. Fairhurst, DCCP WG Chair. (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? Yes, the document was reviewed in a WGLC 27-Feb-08 to 21-Mar-08 (extended because this covered the period surrounding an IETF meeting). The WGLC revealed a set of issues, which have been addressed in this revision of the draft. There were no objections to publishing this as a standards-track replacement for RFC 3448. (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. (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. This is a revised version of RFC 3448. The algorithms presented are complex. They are believed to be safe for use in the general Internet. I am certain this is a considerable improvement in clarity than provided in RFC 3448, although there is some scope for rewriting this in future to improve the document, this would be a significant task. I can not currently WG see energy to undertake this, nor is there the needed implementation and operational experience to support this at this time. (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 document had the support of the IETF DCCP WG. (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.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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]. The references have been verified. (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 [RFC2434]. 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? There are no IANA actions required for this document. (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 appropriate. (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 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 is a product of the DCCP WG in the IETF Transport Area. It specifies the TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC) algorithm. TFRC is a congestion control mechanism for unicast flows operating in a best- effort Internet environment. It is reasonably fair when competing for bandwidth with TCP flows, but has a much lower variation of throughput over time compared with TCP, making it more suitable for applications such as streaming media where a relatively smooth sending rate is of importance. If published, this document will obsolete RFC 3448 and update RFC 4342. 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? This document corrects and updated RFC 3448 (including addressing issues noted in the RFC3448 Errata). It includes a set of other issues arising from simulation of RFC 3448, implementation, and use by applications. It also includes significant restructuring and editorial work to improve the readability. Because of the significant changes in this revised spec, the WG agreed this document should not be used as a request TFRC to progress along the Standards Track. 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? The DCCP WG has reached consensus that this document is ready for publication, and recommends publication on the IETF Standards Track. It was not possible to contact the full set of authors in the period leading up to the WGLC (a separate note has been sent to the ADs). The document specifies an algorithm, rather than a protocol. There are currently therefore no full implementations of this new specification. However, some parts of this have been implemented widely (based on RFC 3448 and its updates) and several implementaters have used this as the basis for their implementation / simulation in the context of DCCP CCID-3 (RFC4342) . Several of these people provided feedback (before and at WGLC) that have resulted in changes being made to the spec. There have been no reported interoperability tests. The WG decided that this document should also update the algorithm specified for TFRC in RFC 4342. This topic was first raised at IETF-68. The proposal to update RFC 4342 was confirmed at IETF-71. (end) |
2008-04-12
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-06.txt |
2008-02-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-05.txt |
2008-01-25
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-04.txt |
2007-11-19
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-03.txt |
2007-07-10
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-02.txt |
2007-03-07
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-01.txt |
2006-10-17
|
06 | Lars Eggert | Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching |
2006-10-16
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-00.txt |