IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@nokia.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 08:28 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhLJW-0004Jw-QW; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:28:38 -0400
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IhLJU-0004Hn-Bx for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:28:36 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhLJT-0004HI-HT for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:28:35 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhLJS-00088V-WB for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:28:35 -0400
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l9F8RwVb012823; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:28:26 +0300
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:28:03 +0300
Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:28:03 +0300
Received: from [172.21.37.234] ([172.21.37.234]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:28:03 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20071010133600.2861B2B9905@lawyers.icir.org>
References: <20071010133600.2861B2B9905@lawyers.icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <9F3E1D0B-7980-4351-BE4B-DCD1AE92895A@nokia.com>
From: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:26:59 +0300
To: mallman@icir.org
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2007 08:28:03.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D87FCF0:01C80F05]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1867419580=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Oct 10, 2007, at 16:36, ext Mark Allman wrote:

> We are starting a WGLC on the UTO specification,
> draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-06.txt.  We believe the document has addressed
> the concerns raised by the WG and that there is good consensus for
> publishing the document.  Our charter says the intended status for the
> document is "Proposed Standard".  However, in the draft tracker it  
> says
> "Experimental".  We cannot seem to recall crisply deciding this issue.

The draft looks fine to me to go forward.

Regarding the Proposed Standard vs. Experimental issue, I think this  
draft, like the other new TCP extensions, should first go to  
Experimental as a rule of thumb. I'm concerned about the increasing  
complexity and size of "the standards track" TCP implementation. It  
would be a good practice to have a careful evaluation in Experimental  
RFC phase before adding up things to standards track TCP that is  
expected to be implemented by most vendors.

- Pasi


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email