Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list

Wesley Eddy <> Mon, 25 February 2013 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B8121F9197 for <>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:00:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVqZL3m7DezJ for <>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2269F21F9195 for <>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1P30rPt007408 for <>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:00:53 -0500
Received: (qmail 30634 invoked by uid 0); 25 Feb 2013 03:00:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 25 Feb 2013 03:00:52 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:00:36 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Knutsen, Andrew" <>
References: <> <> <>, <> <> <> <> <>, <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040008080006010900080804"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [middisc] closure of the middisc list
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions on TCP option for middlebox discovery." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:00:56 -0000

On 2/23/2013 5:50 PM, Knutsen, Andrew wrote:
>    What is the next step for this?  I think we've reached consensus...  Do we have an option to publish as more than a draft?

I was planning to AD-sponsor it.

I sent a mail to this list on 1/31 (attached) that mentions
Pasi Sarolahti had agreed to be the document shepherd.

I was wondering if anyone representing the authors was
going to be at the next IETF meeting (Orlando), just to give
a quick update to TCPM and let them know that this has
converged between the handful of companies cooperating on it.
It's not strictly necessary, but I thought it would be helpful
to avoid anyone being "surprised" by an IETF Last Call on it.

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
--- Begin Message ---
On 1/21/2013 12:00 PM, Mani Ramasamy (mani) wrote:
> All, 
>     Just posted the updated version of the draft. Please review.

If folks are generally happy with this revision, I think the
path forward is that Pasi Sarolahti agreed to do a shepherd
review / writeup.  That was back at the Paris IETF, so he
might have changed his mind by then :).

If any of the authors or advocates will be in Orlando at the
next IETF meeting, it would be nice to give TCPM a 5 minute
recap of the current status, just so they know what happened
since it left the WG as a proposal there.  If nobody else
will be there (or nobody wants to do it!), I'd be happy to
briefly explain it's state.

Since it's unclear who will replace me as AD in March, it
might be a good idea to work kind of quick on this, so that
I can get it as far along with the IESG as possible before
March.  I suspect there will be trouble in the IESG on this,
as recent experience with the TCPM experimental options
draft suggests ...

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
--- End Message ---