Re: Last Call: An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement(SACK) Option for TCP to Proposed Standard
Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov> Wed, 01 March 2000 09:10 UTC
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id EAA26179 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:10:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from daffy.ee.lbl.gov (daffy.ee.lbl.gov [131.243.1.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26121; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 04:04:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vern@localhost) by daffy.ee.lbl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) id BAA08518; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:04:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200003010904.BAA08518@daffy.ee.lbl.gov>
To: Jonathan.Buschmann@icn.siemens.it
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, floyd@ee.lbl.gov, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement(SACK) Option for TCP to Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:14:49 PST.
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:04:38 -0800
From: Vern Paxson <vern@ee.lbl.gov>
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
> > Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) Option for TCP > > <draft-floyd-sack-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard. > > I thought this was originally proposed as an Experimental RFC Correct. > When, how and why was this changed? I didn't see any discussion on the > mailing list. The chairs/ADs deemed it a sufficiently minor (yet useful) change to SACK that it doesn't seem necessary to go the route of first publishing it as Experimental. When the TSVWG working group last call was issued, it was for publishing the document as Proposed, and we noted: > The document was discussed > at the last IETF and appears to have good support and no controversial > issues. There were no working group last call comments. Vern
- Re: Last Call: An Extension to the Selective Ackn… Jonathan Buschmann
- Re: Last Call: An Extension to the Selective Ackn… Vern Paxson