IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 December 2019 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209DD1201EA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDRsqmbcrly8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC5D120115 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id j42so5776159wrj.12 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ku9/r7Cwg1dalxEUCnXpYREPxnK+xC959lxvDYKkrfY=; b=ZtSzsxO3zeMGSgr94sZIFSEVEbMivcpPxi24Jsk5xu/MuKJfJBsVSOdBvj8iEU3/3/ fWWOWjgekEsz5cR+mWFvBZ2WTsd79CvQIz/gOmQ3o3ckh3RLwGOGltmXXkEkdcPrynJ9 5G3BNWgMSw1k+hgGEbxIRSvLolRV7dzuHXhwVXIqAhKGABlrt+9fKHZ/BDIvnBiZxRPC WQkmE1EAAk3XI/55trSp/OMOGz1/Pk3SYi2RHxX5H33chNwQ4nD6VVJxCbsR8WshM/Ld PdR/p/EEGmx+ISWJuIJukYNs6VB6v45qrRpO1ngosRSOmuHkAFhIkngrjW8uQSWGKs9S fAtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ku9/r7Cwg1dalxEUCnXpYREPxnK+xC959lxvDYKkrfY=; b=PRFqR7iRKHnzqYRP8ZogylvXJgEWZbdNKHJvVnqrPPGuIti8hGkZgWQjxgvDrDfFjw xro0luu8Pj3N0OemydBy4xJQnypPs0YWxTikOfEEbaTT8mxiacl7wp6PqzGCdNzkIpNc Ho2ohVRW4E2hiKe05EtuHqunX6UxSa3+NJb6zVIOD47E6C1b4ZdCehLrQ8XrjKhjACz9 FWziAG4E6Y0wLRTQFipUIkBLwzLMZanpn3upk24tmPfVDrqYHLIWJPCSH+GWv+/xhi5N B8+ssKikOEX5t0KEQVJo87WoBwbH1+IfF/UeXM0KxHExZYthC1ibs7/5rw1QnMMK9OKH ZZeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7mBT8vRvYDXMlwThfuht1J4TY7YgYesJ38Ykp/xsvb9by9kJI ewRvvHeyeHLNmvBerBp2OkzOfLep5cvN+vfqs3Gsq8Yb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzYhS5qqIf1sVDI1qMtQ6mwPk2wSYtsPxw4Aw8ecC+D0JbVwuU3Mq/W9yIFpIlUUticcydvjSy9lnBJrrwS+Eo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:558d:: with SMTP id i13mr11604597wrv.364.1576228668628; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAK044Qxf+ap=rPhuh8BxzS38woLHNqms_S--Eo348Fd4D+yuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0e4d60599925532"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/4OB2ZIIvIBX5XXOleGO8YjP64pQ>
Subject: [tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:17:52 -0000

Hi folks,

We would like to get feedback for the intended status
of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn.
The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but we've seen
some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft during Singapore
meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check the consensus on it.

There are some on-going related discussions such as flag registration
policy, SCE, ECN++, etc, however, we believe the intended status
discussions is independent from them and can proceed it separately. (If you
have concerns on it, please share your opinion here)

We appreciate your feedback.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email