RE: Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07
"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Tue, 02 February 2016 14:23 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A531B2B72 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 06:23:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOSCHajsUO90 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 06:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED82C1B2B70 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 06:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 9D32F1CE4A17B; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:23:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u12ENi1m026397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:23:45 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u12ENiX6023161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:23:44 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.112]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:23:44 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: "EXT mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07
Thread-Index: AQHRW6AjJ4cm60TcnU6DNqJ+dFIac58Yu2sAgAASbqA=
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:23:43 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48628E7D@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160129225434.06db0028@elandnews.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008CD0FEB@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008CD0FEB@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nrLJ_qL67vveeViLKJ1vmWgHBbY>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:23:54 -0000
> > "The option defined in this document uses the TCP experimental > option > > codepoint sharing mechanism defined in [RFC6994] and is intended > to > > allow broad deployment of the mechanism on the public Internet." > > > > Is it the opinion of the authors of this draft that it isn't > > worthwhile to get IETF Consensus on a mechanism for broad deployment > > on the public Internet? > > [Med] We tried that path...You may check tcpm archives, fwiw. There have been TCPM discussion e.g. on the use of the TCP option, and the document has improved as a result of these discussions. However, the TCPM charter has a relatively narrow scope focusing on TCP as end-to-end protocol. Rechartering of TCPM would have required IESG approval. TCPM has standardized RFC6994 to enable experimentation without formal assignment of a TCP option kind number. This I-D has registered the experimental ID 0x0348 as foreseen by RFC6994. Thus, regarding the use of the TCP experimental option codepoint, the TCPM process has been followed. Michael (TCPM co-chair)
- Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07 S Moonesamy
- RE: Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-… mohamed.boucadair
- RE: Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-… Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)