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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Many thanks for the Yes position and for the positive comments on the shepherd writeup ... two comments as shepherd are inline ...

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:10 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Black, David <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; Black, David <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.

[David>] "new/untested" is the major reason.  The Transport Area has a practice of applying Experimental status to TCP changes until there is sufficient "soak time" (e.g., operational experience) to demonstrate that they don't break anything.

> 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?

[David>] The "term of art" explanation is correct, e.g., see: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#tcp-parameters-1 .

> Also, once again a nice shepherd writeup from David.
>