Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

[<[e-mail]>]

On 22 Mar 2010, at 18:06, Mark Allman wrote:
>  - But, to me, the right thing to do here is to roll these changes into
>    the work item this WG already has going: 1323bis.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis-01
is based on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web-old/ietf-announce-old/current/msg25824.html

1323bis has been going since 2003, and that's only in its current form.

http://www.kohala.com/start/tcplw-extensions.txt
predates that by another decade. (I've found this particular draft
useful previously.)

So, this prompts the question as to when this ever-iterated document
might be published.

>  - So, I don't know why we'd spin off a second document when we are
>    already updating the main document in this space.

if it's relatively self-contained without dependencies, treat it as
a separate work item, and get it published, rather than getting bogged
down in a larger item that is already close to two decades overdue.


>    TCP is fragmented
>    enough and so when we can fit things together we should.  Further,
>    its one less document this WG will have to food fight over.

1323bis is too large, and too old. It's a massive food fight waiting
to happen once people not even born when it was started wade in,
not to mention a large editing work effort.

My vote is to keep the timestamps stuff self-contained and separate.
Publish what you can.


>  - Why straight to BCP?  I don't really have any technological issues
>    here I want to flog, but it strikes me as pretty weird to move
>    a mechanism like this right to BCP.  Even if I don't have a lot of
>    technical heartburn, we seemingly have a 'standards track' for a
>    reason. 

I don't disagree.

Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood