IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dcp] draft DCP charter for discussion

Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org> Wed, 05 December 2001 03:23 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23686 for <dcp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:23:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17519; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:23:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17490 for <dcp@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:23:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailman.packetdesign.com (dns.packetdesign.com [65.192.41.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23679 for <dcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ash.packetdesign.com (ash.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.243]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id fB53Mui21236; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:22:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from casner@acm.org)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:23:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
To: Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>
cc: dcp <dcp@ietf.org>, Transport Area Directorate <tsv@newdev.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [dcp] draft DCP charter for discussion
In-Reply-To: <12320000.1007507703@new.isi.edu>
Message-ID: <20011204191807.C279-100000@ash.packetdesign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: dcp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dcp-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Datagram Control Protocol <dcp.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dcp@ietf.org

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Aaron Falk wrote:

> All-
>
> Below I've enclosed a draft working group charter for a working group to
> develop the DCP protocol.
...
> Drafts for DCP, and several associated congestion control IDs, already
> exist.  The first task before the working group will be an abbreviated
> functional requirement validation of those drafts.  There are two
> possible outcomes: (1) The current DCP draft is declared suitable for
> further work, with some areas listed for possible extension.  (2) The
> current DCP draft is declared unsuitable for further work, and more
> formal functional requirement exploration begins.

It seems to me that there might be at least a third possible outcome
which is that the functional requirement validation leads to the
conclusion that creating a protocol at this point in the functionality
space should not be done.  I'm not saying that is the outcome to
expect, but to be intellectually honest, it should be included.

							-- Steve


_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list
dcp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email