Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Tue, 25 February 2014 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: middisc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77061A0473 for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CwZt7y0_Ba5z for <middisc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A871A009E for <middisc@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:32:38 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,540,1389772800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="104625575"
Received: from vmwexceht06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.104]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2014 05:32:37 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.211]) by vmwexceht06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:32:37 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Andrew Knutsen <andrew.knutsen@bluecoat.com>
Thread-Topic: [middisc] closure of the middisc list
Thread-Index: AQHPDIEADxwEUn2PpUGYJfRV0uu0Upp7ciiAgAAFD4CAAAB5gIAAAjQAgEOTr4CAAhI8AIAFqV0A
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:32:36 +0000
Message-ID: <E00C504F-E41E-4676-8202-E4022652E7AF@netapp.com>
References: <50ECC3EF.1020405@mti-systems.com> <D22144CF-6E2B-40F0-9DF1-8EF551B93D17@cisco.com> <510B1D7B.1080704@mti-systems.com> <DF29671EFBFC454E984F5A1AD4834F491E79F54E@pwsvl-excmbx-04.internal.cacheflow.com> <510B265E.6060003@mti-systems.com> <CD6E74FCC0FE024BB73C6B483F6706FE0FC60D2F@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <CD6E74FCC0FE024BB73C6B483F6706FE0FC62DB3@xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com> <974FE049BD0F2E4188567FAD99DEF0331E801629@pwsvl-excmbx-04.internal.cacheflow.com> <512AD48A.5010104@mti-systems.com> <CAFZUbhdnYjfVUrPfwis0a6bnfYzUbsotOu6KYZ5n_9mosXMTew@mail.gmail.com> <CAFZUbhe9tUy7+pyfQsgJDLQRq5_hmf8NxaY3juNFGODwJKz-Hw@mail.gmail.com> <5166EB4E.8090402@mti-systems.com> <2A8B04BF-8F0A-4031-9CD7-6648A3C17AD8@netapp.com> <52CD6851.6040002@mti-systems.com> <CAFZUbhfhWgTgHYXFz3G_pT7R4eYxw2X+F7H+CcnaNUiscpndeQ@mail.gmail.com> <52CD6CF5.1030604@mti-systems.com> <3DC697A4-5800-47A5-B7D1-F68B9DE02D25@netapp.com> <BF99BE4A-4503-4403-9C25-20390251DB9B@netapp.com> <5307DBA0.3010504@bluecoat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5307DBA0.3010504@bluecoat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.122.105.28]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80C0BEBF-B577-46BC-89E9-8C50EC82FDB6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/middisc/bTth35PKCJUgY5LLEjf0C2ufEso
Cc: "middisc@ietf.org" <middisc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list
X-BeenThere: middisc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions on TCP option for middlebox discovery." <middisc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/middisc/>
List-Post: <mailto:middisc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/middisc>, <mailto:middisc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:32:40 -0000

Hi,

On 2014-2-22, at 0:05, Andrew Knutsen <andrew.knutsen@bluecoat.com>; wrote:
> It seems to be the consensus that the proper way to get a TCP option kind is to squat.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. If I recall correctly - it's been a while - some issues were raised when the draft was presented in the IETF, but they can certainly be overcome with a bit of energy to produce a revision or two.

Hence the question if anyone has this energy. It need not be the folks currently listed as authors, if they are willing to let someone else hold the pen.

Lars