IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] Should draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry update RFC 3717 (SACK-TCP)

Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@nets.rwth-aachen.de> Wed, 21 October 2009 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.zimmermann@nets.rwth-aachen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9123A695C for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n5aDtdfwBeJb for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9151C3A68C4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0KRV00EEQ0U11V10@mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:22:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,596,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="30572219"
Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:22:50 +0200
Received: from miami.nets.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.12.180]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0KRV00EUV0U1MG70@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:22:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@nets.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:22:50 +0200
Message-id: <FC9F73AD-17BF-46B3-A629-6111AD63ABF4@nets.rwth-aachen.de>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org WG Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Subject: [tcpm] Should draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry update RFC 3717 (SACK-TCP)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:22:43 -0000

Hi folks,

based on the fact that the draft "draft-ietf-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry"  
is adopted as WG item now and intended to be a "standards track"  
document, I would like to start a poll/discussion whether the draft  
should update RFC 3517 or not? Moreover, should we produce a separate  
document or an update of RFC 3517?

a) separate document, do not update RFC 3517
b) separate document, update RFC 3517
c) RFC3517bis, obsolete RFC 3517

//
// Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann
// Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4
// RWTH Aachen University
// Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany
// phone: (49-241) 80-21422, fax: (49-241) 80-22220
// email: zimmermann@cs.rwth-aachen.de
// web: http://www.umic-mesh.net
//

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email