Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 24 June 2010 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB663A6982 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45kFs8qx9jfO for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DDE3A688A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.176.226] (c2-vpn09.isi.edu [128.9.176.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5OIlSbp005005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C23A83F.3080102@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:47:27 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com><33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com><2262C708-DF9A-4DD9-9378-D84C5AF330AC@nokia.com> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB48105A5A82@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580A0CE306@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580A0CE306@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig92DBE6BF3AE8EB6C41E8F384"
X-MailScanner-ID: o5OIlSbp005005
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:48:59 -0000


Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
...
>> Ok, consider the mail from Lars the opening of this consensus 
>> to adopt poll. :)  In the next two weeks, if people could 
>> respond whether they:
>>
>> 1) Support this document for development towards publication 
>> as an Informational RFC via the TCPM working group
>>
>> 2) Do not support the document as a TCPM work item.
> 
> I have already communicated earlier that the TCP alternate checksum
> option needs to be removed from this list. Reason being it is still
> being used and there are proposals out there that is trying to make use
> of this option. Other than that point I am fine with this draft moving
> forward.

I agree with Anantha, except that I think the doc might have a short section
explaining *why* the alt checksum isn't in the list.

Joe