ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt (Specifying New Congestion Control Algorithms) to BCP

2007-05-28 00:38:49
On 2007-5-26, at 14:24, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
(Note: this is still a draft version if you're referring to
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-tsv-alt-cc.txt)

This model raises one fundamental question issue of the scope of this document.

Who should be evaluating section 3 and 4 of this document? Is this solely meant for ICCRG, the IETF or both? If both, would both parties do everything described in those documents?

The basic idea behind this ION is that a researcher would bring his or her proposal, papers and experimental data to the ICCRG, which would then evaluate whether a proposal is safe for experimentation in the Internet or in more restricted network environments. (According to draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt, and probably also draft-irtf-tmrg- metrics.) That review will accompany the resulting -00 technical specification when it is brought to the IETF.

It would be clearer if the reviewer was ICCRG, and the IETF would not attempt to perform the same review, and the IETF wouldn't be allowed to second-guess the proposal, e.g., that it's research has not been done well enough if it was already positively evaluated by ICCRG.

There is a strong expectation that the IETF would usually agree with the review recommendation that the ICCRG made, and take on the document. (Sufficient people overlap, the ICCRG has stronger congestion control expertise, etc.) But process-wise it *is* up the to the WG (likely TCPM) to come to consensus on whether they want to adopt any given work item, and that consensus call can't be outsourced to the ICCRG. But I would personally see it as a sign that something went very wrong if TCPM would not publish something as Experimental that came with a strong ICCRG review.

Lars

PS: I'm editing the ION in response to IESG comments. The latest working version is under http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/ browser/ions/drafts - I'd be interested in hearing suggestions on how the text could be improved.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf