Re: [tcpm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"" <> Mon, 11 October 2021 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E773A087F; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGZWL9uIFqDh; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056C13A0881; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=y25Bf4nu+fvclgvfmUH5wlbSkQ0fLhfY1ibTJJWHBBg=; b=A7arTSY1mWYM+4Ug4ybaJAa4t6 sTMaSk5JER7EVhJ+c4fdbHvxyYnNhf48dP6KK8GST/fb3D1A5DYM+8S6lMfzvusu90DGWYT03uzBo winO/H5MZRc6hqYLH5O7OjnM9fV1D+qEQo2emo1xftHf21TpOGDY1YpqkGfn3yVOoJctIKA1s6GBT iIPJx47MC0YeEjD44YysYQUBRCyOc2I3uhhw7UUHzxYYD9LCLjpYF8RXmY83+C2OAE5AiaUd5UvRU vhfGn4smVn8XjC3cCp9Qt3rfRXedPBvv1fM9I+x72/nBn0hpewvf1YOErJs6u1w7V1CrJAW+T4Fq1 oN0jY7rQ==;
Received: from ([]:59250 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1mZwUj-00H33D-38; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 10:41:41 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BEFB0F8B-F9CC-4105-B04F-2DAED9B3B467"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:41:35 -0700
Cc: Wes Eddy <>,, tcpm <>, The IESG <>,
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:41:51 -0000

> On Oct 11, 2021, at 1:55 AM, Lars Eggert <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2021-10-8, at 22:14, Wesley Eddy < <>> wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 10:18 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:
>>> Section 3.1. , paragraph 50, comment:
>>>>     Note: There is ongoing work to extend the space available for TCP
>>>>     options, such as [64].
>>> draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-edo has been dead for four years, not sure how useful it is
>>> to point to.
>> I didn't change this, because I recall it being mentioned in the WG that it was felt to be useful to point to, if only to avoid someone proposing yet another way of dealing with this.
> for an RFC, esp. one that is expected to be quite long-lived, I don't think referring to ongoing work is such a great idea, since that won't age well. Maybe how you are referring to that document could be rephrased?

To repeat my post from 9/30/21, which was not responded to:

Were drafts not archived by the IETF, I would agree, but they are, so they remain useful.

Further, it isn’t “dead”; it hasn’t changed. I no longer perform in-place updates when there are no changes.

I discussed how to move it forward with the chairs in July 2020. Based on that discussion the deadline was moved to Nov 2022, largely due to my limited cycles for concurrent drafts, focusing on 2140bis first.

Regardless, it remains a comprehensive description of the issues.