Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

[Ingemar Johansson S <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I am also in support of proposed standard for draft-ietf-tcpm-rack as this
can potentially relax the strict ordering requirements in 5G deployments. I
am not 100% certain of the actual value of proposed standard vs experimental
ditto outside IETF but it is definitely not of negative impact. 

A question (perhaps already discussed on the mailing list): 
How widely do you think that RACK will be deployed in TCP stacks in the near
and more far perspective?. 
I know that it is already in Linux. What about MS Windows, FreeBSD, IOS,
Android ??
/Ingemar

> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:17:47 -0800
> From: Yuchung Cheng <[e-mail]>
> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=[e-mail]>,  Praveen
> 	Balasubramanian <pravb=[e-mail]>,
> Michael
> 	Tuexen <[e-mail]>,  "[e-mail]
> Extensions"
> 	<[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAK6E8=enBNBrTwkbDXKF5Snu-
> [e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> PS +1 for same reasons people have mentioned
> 
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 11:28 AM Rodney W. Grimes
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> > I am finding myself in agreement with others, PS is the correct status.
> >
> > Thank you Neal for the good siting of RFC7127 with respect to PS,
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rod
> >
> > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 3:49 AM Praveen Balasubramanian
> > > <pravb=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RACK is fundamental enough, subsumes TLP, and has enough
> > implementation and deployment. My vote is for PS status.
> > >
> > > Personally, I agree with Praveen, that "Proposed Standard" is
> > > appropriate, given my understanding of the definition from
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#section-3.1 :
> > >
> > >    3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
> > >    ...
> > >    A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
> > >    design choices, has received significant community review, and
> > >    appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered
> valuable.
> > >
> > >    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
> > >    required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
> > >    Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
> > >    usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
> > >    designation.
> > >
> > > There are several independent and very widely deployed
> > > implementations of RACK at this point.
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > neal
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tcpm mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rod Grimes
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/attachments/20191118/c25
> 5c28b/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of tcpm Digest, Vol 187, Issue 64
> *************************************