Tools ietf org group irtf trac wiki tracreports

The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the reviewer s , authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.

The poll typically runs for three weeks. The possible votes are as follows:. At least two other IRSG members besides the one sponsoring the document need to vote 'ready to publish' for the document to move forward. Any vote of 'not ready to publish' will hold a document's progress until the comments are addressed. The IRTF chair may choose to override 'not ready to publish' holds that, in the opinion of the chair, have received an adequate response.

The shepherd will record the poll results in the tracker. IRSG Review is concluded at this time. The shepherd and authors review all comments determine whether a revision is required. It is recommended that authors not submit document revisions during the review period, in order to give the IESG reviewers a stable target to review. Instead, they should make note of comments and suggestions and post a revision that addresses them after the review period ends, i.

Note that in some cases, the IESG or an RG chair will specifically request that a new version be submitted during the review process, which the authors should then obviously do.

The Area Director reviews the document and proposes on of the possible review responses listed in RFC Note that individual Area Directors may also send other comments or suggestions to the RG or the authors, but those are not blocking publication.

Example: List active tickets, grouped by milestone, colored by priority, with description and multi-line layout. If you have added custom fields to your tickets a feature since v0. If you have tickets in the database before you declare the extra fields in trac.

Note that you need to set up permissions in order to see the buttons for adding or editing reports. Powered by Trac 0. Administered by webmaster tools. IETF Home. Tools: diffs spell xml2rfc idnits id2xml tracker src. Download in other formats: Plain Text. You will almost definitely need to restart your httpd at this point.

A report consists of these basic parts: ID -- Unique sequential identifier Title -- Descriptive title Description -- A brief description of the report, in WikiFormatting text. Report Body -- List of results from report query, formatted according to the methods described below. Footer -- Links to alternative download formats for this report. Changing Sort Order Simple reports - ungrouped reports to be specific - can be changed to be sorted by any column simply by clicking the column header.

Changing Report Numbering There may be instances where you need to change the ID of the report, perhaps to organize the reports better. Navigating Tickets Clicking on one of the report results will take you to that ticket. Comma-delimited - CSV Comma Separated Values Export the report as plain text, each row on its own line, columns separated by a single comma ','. Ticket columns The ticket table has the following columns: id type time changetime component severity priority owner reporter cc version milestone status resolution summary description keywords See TracTickets for a detailed description of the column fields.

Variables There is one magic dynamic variable to allow practical reports, its value automatically set without having to change the URL. Special Columns To format reports, TracReports looks for 'magic' column names in the query result. Automatically formatted columns ticket -- Ticket ID number. Cao, and S. Low, Related papers. Li, D. Leith and R. Shorten, The tests restrict attention to scenarios with only long-lived flows, with one-way traffic, drop-tail queues, and a single bottleneck link.

There are tests for fairness within the transport protocol including fairness between flows with different RTTs , fairness with standard TCP, throughput, loss rates, response functions, and convergence times.

The different protocols are implemented with a common network stack. NS scripts. Bullot, R. Les Cottrell, and R. The analysis will compare and report on the stacks in terms of achievable throughput, impact on RTT, intra- and inter-protocol fairness, stability, as well as the impact of reverse traffic.

Kanakia, S. Keshav, and P. This paper uses the metrics of file transfer time and packet delay, and proposes the following scenarios: slow changes in cross traffic; sudden changes in cross traffic; transfer times for short files; fairness; migrating bottlenecks; two-way traffic; non-compliant cross-traffic; small buffers; a low bandwidth-delay network; and a torture test for rate-based schemes with two flows with very different round-trip times.

Powered by Trac 1. The documents will include a survey of models used in simulations, analysis, and experiments for the evaluation of transport protocols. The output of the research group will also include a broad set of simulation test suites, and a set of recommendations for test suites for experiments in test beds.