[Iccrg] review of high-speed proposals?

[Lars Eggert]

Hi,

On 2011-1-26, at 15:32, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> The IETF cannot start the process of publishing these IDs on high-speed congestion control as Experimental until they have actually been submitted to the TCPM WG for adoption.

I got some off-list feedback about how this sentence might be misunderstood. Let me attempt to clarify. The TCPM WG asked the ICCRG to review these three documents to determine whether they are safe enough for broader experimentation. This was a step in the adoption process of these documents in TCPM, which the authors requested (some time ago.)

Obviously, the ICCRG can publish Experimental RFCs directly through the "IRTF Stream" [RFC 5743]. How is this different from publishing Experimental RFCs through the "IETF Stream" [RFC 4844], which is what I think both the authors and me personally prefer for the three documents in question? In a nutshell: IETF-Stream RFCs have IETF consensus behind them, whereas IRTF-Stream RFCs do not. This may seem like a technicality, both for vendors who are trying to evaluate whether they should take a closer look at these algorithms, that difference may well matter. Plus, IETF-Stream RFCs typically undergo and IETF last call and IESG approval, and so are arguably somewhat more closely reviewed.

This difference is expressed through the boilerplate difference in the RFCs, which for IRTF-Stream documents reads:

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
   deployment.  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a
   candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
   5741.

whereas for IETF-Stream RFCs, it reads:

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Lars
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4367 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/attachments/20110127/052c326d/smime.bin