Subject: [tcpm] Requesting publication from TCPM of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04

From: "SCHARF, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 18:00:42 +0200

Hello,

attached is the PROTO statement for the TCPM working group document
draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04. We would like to request for publication as
Informational. Michael Scharf (TCPM co-chair) is the document shepherd. 

Thanks

Michael

draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04

  (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? 

Michael Scharf ([email-masked]) is the document
shepherd. He has personally reviewed this version and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG 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 is the outcome of lengthy discussions that have spanned
over years. The WG chairs (Wes Eddy and David Borman) have had one on
one discussions with the authors prior to it being adopted as a WG
document, as well as discussions on the mailing list since it was
adopted. The working group last call generated late feedback from key
WG members that is addressed in the document. Since this is a short
and informational document, the reviews are sufficient.

  (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? 

No concerns.

  (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. 

No concerns.

  (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?   

There was a significant amount of discussions on the scope of this
document, and the WG consensus was to come up with a draft that 
clarifies the intentions of RFC 1122. There is a reasonable level of
support for the document. During the working group last call, some
late objections have been raised on the mailing list, and the requested
changes have completely been incorporated in the document.

  (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.) 

No.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist 
        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? 

There are no significant formatting issues.

  (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 properly split.

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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 IANA considerations are present and specify no actions for IANA.

  (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? 

Not applicable.

  (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. 

>From abstract:

   This document clarifies the Zero Window Probes (ZWP) described in
   Requirements for Internet Hosts [RFC1122].  In particular, it
   clarifies the actions that can be taken on connections which are
   experiencing the ZWP condition.

     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 biggest challenge with this document was getting the authors to
limit its scope and simplify what needed to be in the document to make
it acceptable as a WG document. The entire impetus for this document
was that there were TCP implementations out there that treated
connections in persist state as special, and had explicit code to keep
them from being terminated in situations where the implementation
would normally abort connections in other TCP states, which lead to a
vulnerability for resource starvation. Earlier versions of the
document contained a full API, i. e., a mechanism for applications to
set timers to abort TCP connections in persist state, and the WG
wanted the document to only identify and clarify the issue of how a
TCP should treat connections in the persist state: the same as any
other connection. All that has been removed from the document.

Early on one of the largest issues was getting the authors to
understand the distinction between the TCP protocol itself terminating
a connection in persist state, and some other part of the operating
system implementation terminating a TCP connection. If the OS is
resource starved it can abort any TCP connections it wants to,
including connections in persist state, and that does not make it the
TCP protocol that is deciding to abort the connection.

In its current format, the document reflects those changes to limit
the scope of the document to just identify what has been
mis-interpretted and clarify that a TCP connection in persist state is
treated the same as any other TCP connection.

And while this document doesn't explicitly state it, the reason that
Section 4.2.2.17 of Requirements for Internet Hosts [RFC1122] exists
is that at the time there were TCP implementations that were treating
connections in persist state the same as connections that weren't
receiving any return traffic and timing them out.

     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?

This is a short informational document that does not specify a
protocol. It is published to clarify the intentions of RFC 1122.