[Iccrg] Call for reviewers for CTCP
michael.welzl at uibk.ac.at
Thu Aug 9 15:08:12 BST 2007
As you probably know, the ICCRG has agreed to obtain reviews
on experimental congestion control proposals before they
are brought to the IETF. While the competence to actually
decide about acceptance or not is with the IETF, it is expected
that they will take our reviews into account. This process
is outlined here:
Right now, we are looking for reviews on
for which it was requested that the draft would eventually become
a WG item of the TCPM Working Group.
The authors recently sent a few related pointers to the list; if
you lost that message, it's here in the archive:
We would like to get feedback within 2 1/2 months
(earlier if possible).
If you're interested in doing a review, please send a note
to Wes and me. Reviews should be sent to the list; while
we explicitly encourage open reviews, you can also directly
send them to us for anonymization before reflecting them out
to the list, if desired.
Reviewers are strongly advised to:
* read draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04:
* consider not only the draft alone, but also papers referenced
therein, where the authors should have carried out an evaluation
of their mechanism, including studies which show the impact of the
new mechanism on standard TCP. When looking at such studies,
this document is recommended to be used for guidance:
One main conclusion that we are looking for is whether you agree
with the statement on safeness which is included in the abstract
of the draft (and obviously, we'd like to know how you arrived
at your decision). The requirement for including such a statement
is specified in section 2 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-cc-alt-04:
Each alternate congestion control algorithm published is required to
include a statement in the abstract indicating whether or not the
proposal is considered safe for use on the Internet. Each alternate
congestion control algorithm published is also required to include a
statement in the abstract describing environments where the protocol
is not recommended for deployment. There may be environments where
the protocol is deemed *safe* for use, but still is not
*recommended* for use because it does not perform well for the user.
We expect reviewers to have thoroughly read all the necessary
material. Generally, the more careful, complete and descriptive
a review is the more credence it will be given.
Thanks in advance to anyone who volunteers!
More information about the Iccrg