Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms
draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04

[Ballot comment]
I believe the document is a bit weak in its choice of words in some areas for a BCP (e.g., rather than "we would hope the guidelines in this document inform" simply state "the guidelines in this document inform").

[Ballot comment]
I still believe the document is a bit weak in some areas for a BCP (e.g., rather than "we would hope the guidelines in this document inform" simply state "the guidelines in this document inform").

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss, Discuss.

> We note that this is not a binding document with fixed and
> unchanging requirements, but simply a document targeted
> for approval as Best Current Practice.

This isn't consistent with how some BCPs are portrayed. If this is your intent, perhaps the document should be Informational.

This text, following the first paragraph of guideline #8 in section 3 seems to be unfinished:

>        As a similar concern, if the alternate congestion control
>        mechanism is intended only for specific environments, the
>        proposal should consider how this intention is to be carried
>        out.  For example, if a proposed congestion control scheme is
>        deemed suitable for deployment in controlled environments but
>        unsafe for widespread deployment in the Internet, is it
>        sufficient just to have a sentence in the Abstract of the
>        document stating this, or are some additional mechanisms needed
>        as well?

This isn't Guidance, its an unanswered question.

Given that Guideline #8 is one of the "Minimum requirements for approval for widespread deployment" I think it needs to be a little tighter.

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss, Discuss.

> We note that this is not a binding document with fixed and
> unchanging requirements, but simply a document targeted
> for approval as Best Current Practice.

This isn't consistent with how some BCPs are portrayed. If this is your intent, perhaps the document should be Informational.

This text, following the first paragraph of guideline #8 in section 3 seems to be unfinished:

>        As a similar concern, if the alternate congestion control
>        mechanism is intended only for specific environments, the
>        proposal should consider how this intention is to be carried
>        out.  For example, if a proposed congestion control scheme is
>        deemed suitable for deployment in controlled environments but
>        unsafe for widespread deployment in the Internet, is it
>        sufficient just to have a sentence in the Abstract of the
>        document stating this, or are some additional mechanisms needed
>        as well?

This isn't Guidance, its an unanswered question.

Given that Guideline #8 is one of the "Minimum requirements for approval for widespread deployment" I think it needs to be a little tighter.

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss, Discuss.

> We note that this is not a binding document with fixed and
> unchanging requirements, but simply a document targeted
> for approval as Best Current Practice.

This isn't consistent with how some BCPs are portrayed. If this is your intent, perhaps the document should be Informational.

This text, following the first paragraph of guideline #8 in section 3 seems to be unfinished:

>        As a similar concern, if the alternate congestion control
>        mechanism is intended only for specific environments, the
>        proposal should consider how this intention is to be carried
>        out.  For example, if a proposed congestion control scheme is
>        deemed suitable for deployment in controlled environments but
>        unsafe for widespread deployment in the Internet, is it
>        sufficient just to have a sentence in the Abstract of the
>        document stating this, or are some additional mechanisms needed
>        as well?

This isn't Guidance, its an unanswered question.

Given that Guideline #8 is one of the "Minimum requirements for approval for widespread deployment" I think it needs to be a little tighter.

[Ballot discuss]
The Abstract needs to be rewritten.  The Abstract must not contain
  references like: [RFC3649], [HTCP], [FAST], [BIC], [CompoundTCP],
  and [XCP].  Remember that Abstracts are published in summary
  documents so that the references are not available.

  The rewite of the Abstract proposed by the author is:
  >
  > The IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely
  > shown to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed
  > networks).  Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion
  > control schemes that significantly differ from the IETF's congestion
  > control principles.  Using these new congestion control schemes in
  > the global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic
  > using the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently
  > standardized congestion control.  Therefore, the IETF must proceed
  > with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control
  > proposals.  The goal of this document is to provide guidance for
  > considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF.
  >
  This fully resolves my concerns.


  I do not see what Section 5 adds to the BCP.  It is essentially
  the Abstract.  It does not include any references.

  The author proposed removing the section.  This action would fully
  resolve my concern.

[Ballot discuss]
The Abstract needs to be rewritten.  The Abstract must not contain
  references like: [RFC3649], [HTCP], [FAST], [BIC], [CompoundTCP],
  and [XCP].  Remember that Abstracts are published in summary
  documents so that the references are not available.

  The rewite of the Abstract proposed by the author is:
  >
  > The IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely
  > shown to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed
  > networks).  Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion
  > control schemes that significantly differ from the IETF's congestion
  > control principles.  Using these new congestion control schemes in
  > the global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic
  > using the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently
  > standardized congestion control.  Therefore, the IETF must proceed
  > with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control
  > proposals.  The goal of this document is to provide guidance for
  > considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF.
  >
  This fully resolves my concerns.


  I do not see what Section 5 adds to the BCP.  It is essentially
  the Abstract.  It does not include any references.

  The author proposed removing the section.  This action would fully
  resolve my concern.

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo uncovered the following
  IDNits tool complaints:

  ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
    longest one being 1 character in excess of 72.

  ** There are 70 instances of lines with control characters in the
    document.

[Ballot discuss]
The Abstract needs to be rewritten.  The Abstract must not contain
  references like: [RFC3649], [HTCP], [FAST], [BIC], [CompoundTCP],
  and [XCP].  Remember that Abstracts are published in summary
  documents so that the references are not available.

  I do not see what Section 5 adds to the BCP.  It is essentially
  the Abstract.  It does not include any references.

[Ballot comment]
If this is not a binding guideline, I don't understand why we are publishing as a BCP rather than informational.

However the text is good so I'm not going to hold a discuss.

[Ballot comment]
When reading this, it wondered if the 2914 reference should be normative. I don't care one way or the other but might be worth 10 seconds of thought.

[Ballot comment]
I am not sure why section 5 (Conclusions) is needed, it looks like a leftover from previous versions of the document. Also why is it using the term 'researchers' instead of 'authors of congestion control schemes' for example?

PROTO Write-up

> (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?

The document shepherd for this document Lars Eggert
(lars.eggert@nokia.com). I have reviewed this document and believe it
is ready for publication.


> (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?

The document has been presented to the WG during several IETF
meetings and has been reviewed by a number of key WG members. It has
also been discussed in the IRTF's ICCRG and the wider research
community.

> (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?

The document has received sufficient review.

> (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.

I have no specific concerns regarding this document.

> (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?

The consensus was clear, but not overwhelmingly strong.

> (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.)

This has not happened.

> (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?

idnits 2.04.07 claims that there are minor formatting nits (one long
line and several control characters) but the shepherd is unable to
locate them in the draft.

> (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 are in order.

> (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?

The document has no IANA considerations.

> (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?

There are no such sections in the document.

> (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.

The IETF's standard congestion control schemes have been widely shown
to be inadequate for various environments (e.g., high-speed
networks). Recent research has yielded many alternate congestion
control schemes. Using these new congestion control schemes in the
global Internet has possible ramifications to both the traffic using
the new congestion control and to traffic using the currently
standardized congestion control. Therefore, the IETF must proceed
with caution when dealing with alternate congestion control
proposals. The goal of this document is to provide guidance for
considering alternate congestion control algorithms within the IETF.

> 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?

The WG consensus on this document was clear, but not overwhelmingly
strong.

> 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 document has been presented to the WG during several IETF
meetings and has been reviewed by a number of key WG members. It has
also been discussed in the IRTF's ICCRG and the wider research
community.

> Personnel
> Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who
> is the
> Responsible Area Director?

Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) was the document shepherd and
also reviewed this document for the IESG.