Shepherd writeup
rfc8961-17

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
The responsible Area Director is Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>

This document provides high-level guidance to design the primary or last resort time-based
loss detection schemes for general use on the Internet, which can be applied to not only TCP,
but also other transport protocols and applications that need their own loss detection mechanisms.
The WG requests to publish this draft as Best Current Practice document because it describes
generic principles to update existing loss detection algorithms or to develop new ones.

2. Review and Consensus

The draft was originally written for TCP and hence presented and adopted at TCPM WG.
As the discussions on the draft proceeded, the focus of the draft has been extended to other
transport and application protocols because the same principle can be applied to them.
Because of this updates, we have decided to run WGLC for this draft on both TSVWG and TCPM WG
while we still have used TCPM WG as the venue for the discussions. 

The draft has been reviewed and discussed by various participants in the WG for long time.
Most of discussion points were the choice of exact wordings in order not to create any
contradictions to other documents.
In addition, we have assigned two experts to get specific feedback from the viewpoint of
non-TCP protocols such as QUIC. The WGLC on both WG ended successfully without any major issues.
I believe there is a strong consensus in both WGs for publication.

During ART reviews, there were some discussions on the scope and the applicability of the document.
The main point of discussions was how we can apply this document to the cases where we have
some knowledge about the network. The document has been updated several times in order to 
address the points raised during the discussions, however, complete agreements have not been archived. 
We decided to leave the final decision to IESG with regard to this.

3. Intellectual Property

Each author has confirmed that their direct, personal knowledge of any
IPR related to this document has already been disclosed.
None of the authors is aware of any IPR related to this document.

4. Other Points
Back