Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 03 December 2008 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FDE28C0F3; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:35:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954413A6B54; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:35:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CfD7QpGEVHeo; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EA63A6B4F; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB476B6598; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 06:35:12 -0300 (ART)
Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mB39Z5P5007692; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:35:06 -0200
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:28:59 -0300
To: Lars Eggert <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 ( []); Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:35:12 -0300 (ART)
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 06:07 a.m. 03/12/2008, Lars Eggert wrote:

>>I have produced a separate PDF document with such a discussion, and
>>have provided a pointer to it in the Introduction. Please let me know
>>if you think this addresses the issue you raised.
>>WG: Is this okay with the working group, or is any other approach
>>preferred rather than the one I hve taken to adderss David's comments?
>Quick follow-up: I have suggested to Fernando the alternative of
>including a short section of text on just this issue in the document
>itself, instead of referencing a PDF that includes a lot of other test
>(the PDF is basically what used to be appendix A, which was removed
>based on WG feedback). But that is also not aligned with prior WG
>consensus, since it would move some text back that we had removed.
>Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus
>had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement on
>whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point
>to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the
>rough side of the consensus.

FWIW, my personal take is that adding a reference to that PDF can 
address David's comments without having to add text back to the I-D.

Kind regards,

Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

tcpm mailing list