Subject: [tsvwg] WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-11 - end 19th August

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:04:11 +0200

This email announces the start of a working group last call to
confirm publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-11,
"Byte and Packet Congestion Notification". This document was
returned to the WG after IESG review and has been updated
in response to feedback. It is now thought to be ready to
proceed to be published as a BCP.

Please send any comments to the TSVWG list.

The draft is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-11

The last call will run for TWO weeks, ending 19th August.

James, David, and Gorry
(TSVWG Chairs)
[email-masked]

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:53:18 -0400

> proceed to be published as a BCP.

   The document continues to be improved by each iteration. :^)

   Indeed, after this latest iteration, I undertook to draft a rewrite
of the introduction, to bring it into the form I believe is needed for
a Best Current Practice.

   But, on reflection, I refrained from posting that. This document
fundamentally is what it is -- an academic study of a narrow question
about a particular Active Queue Management practice. It cannot be
turned into an appropriate Best Current Practice without violence
to its nature.

   It remains a good document to be published as Informational; and
while I remain willing to help mold it into BCP form, I must advise
against trying.

   The decision, years ago, to change the charter item to call for
publication as a BCP was apparently taken at an IETF week which I
did not attend. When I learned of this decision, I asked on-list
to discuss on-list the reason(s) for that change. Such discusison
never happened.

   We have, with my quite-grudging consent, fulfilled the charter
item. We did
" 
" Submit 'Byte and Packet Congestion Notification' to IESG for
" consideration as a Best Current Practice RFC

   It's done.

   The question of BCP status was discussed by the IESG, which
deferred it to the Responsible AD, Martin Stiemerling. This WG can
express opinions about BCP vs. Informational, but it is really up
to Martin and/or Spencer.

   My recommendation remains strong that this be Informational.
I also remain willing to put forth the effort to make a document
deserving BCP status. But this document isn't a best _current_
practice: it is perhaps a best five-year-old practice. But the
issue involved really doesn't justify the effort to reach a
best _current_ practice.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:06:51 +0100

This email concludes the WGLC.

Comments were received after this document were returned to the WG from 
John Leslie, Fred Baker, Gory Fairhurst, Ruediger Geib, Wes Eddy, Lars 
Eggert, Dave Taht, and David Black. Thanks to everyone who commented.

I saw one comment during the WGLC, which confirmed the contents, but 
questioned the intended status.

We now plan to resubmit the document to our AD.

Gorry

-- 
Prof Gorry Fairhurst, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland,
No SC013683.