[tcpinc] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 28 November 2017 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80A312726E; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:10:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno@ietf.org, David Black <david.black@dell.com>, tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org, david.black@dell.com, tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.66.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151190700381.8033.14862699233030432760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:10:03 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/38qSGon502cA5JsQsY3fwvu-8dE>
Subject: [tcpinc] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:10:04 -0000

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I'd like to echo what others have said, especially Adam's Section 4 comment,
and Benoit's "what is the actual experiment?" - if this doesn't explain what
the experiment will test, perhaps it should be Std Track? (Section 9, while
nice, doesn't really cover this). Just because it is new / untested doesn't
mean that it cannot be standard and then updated later.

I was also confused by the "option kind" - I'd assumed that it was simply a
term of art for TCP option, but seeing as Spencer is also mystified I'm
guessing not -- for my own education, can you please explain?

Also, once again a nice shepherd writeup from David.