Re: review solicitation for ICCRG congestion control survey

Authors,

	Layout/per RFC question,

	Can I suggest a different per RFC layout.
        In my opinion, each RFC listing item should include the type of
RFC,
        the date, the first author, and then the abstract. To give a
        different summary than the abstract is inconsistent to what was
        initially published for the RFC and may change the meaning of
	the abstract than what the authors intended.

	If the abstract is missing, then I could agree that a substitute
	description be given in this doc. If the abstract is "too long"
	or missing, I would think that a shortened version in this
	document with a preword that this doc may contain a shortened 
	abstract, new, or different of the mentioned of the RFC and that 
	has been approved by the RFC authors.

	Mitchell Erblich
	---------------

	

Wesley Eddy wrote:
> 
> In the ICCRG's goal to foster a long-term congestion control
> architecture for the Internet, its initial step is to understand all of
> the current mechanisms in use.  As an aid to this, the ICCRG is working
> on a document that summarizes all of the congestion control mechanisms
> and other guidance that the IETF has produced and published in the RFC
> series.  The initial version of this document is online:
> http://tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-00.txt
> 
> We think this is a fairly complete listing of the RFCs that relate to
> congestion control, but if you know of others that should be included,
> we would like to hear about it.
> 
> Also, comments on what can be done to make this more useful or readable
> are welcome.  Comments on and improvements to the text summarizing each
> RFC are also welcome.
> 
> The goal is to gather these inputs before the ICCRG meeting in
> mid-February.  After the ICCRG meeting, the document will be updated
> based on these comments and discussion from the meeting.
> 
> Please send all comments to the ICCRG list ([email protected]).  Although
> this request is being sent to multiple lists, this is only to notify
> people not on the ICCRG list; we do not want to burden the other mailing
> lists with replies, so please trim the "to" and "cc" fields of replies.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> --
> Wesley M. Eddy
> Verizon Federal Network Systems