> For other guidelines, i.e., (2), (5), (6), and (7), the author > must perform the suggested evaluations and provide recommended > analysis. Evidence that > the proposed mechanism has significantly more problems than those of > TCP should be a cause for concern in approval for widespread > deployment in the global Internet.
Looks OK to me. I have incorporated it, modulo comments from Sally. As for the non-BE stuff: This document is a no-op. But, why is that an issue? The IETF would have to grapple with the non-BE case just as it does today (i.e., without a set of guidelines). This one document does not need to solve all the world's problems. If you want to write a document about how the IETF should handle non-BE congestion control proposals, I think that'd be fine. And, again, I am not hearing outcry on this point so I think the document is fine (even if the consensus on this one point is not completely 'smooth'). Thanks, allman
pgpZ20qD5vV8W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
