IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options

Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com> Sat, 16 February 2013 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.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 06B6821F8461 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sqv9AA6mUkXq for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C53221F841D for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-65.lucent.com [135.5.2.65]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r1G1oRol008183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:50:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [192.207.23.55]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r1G1oFFx021547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:50:17 -0500
Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (igoyret.lra.lucent.com [135.244.41.245]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id r1G1oCHZ015796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:50:14 -0800
Message-Id: <201302160150.r1G1oCHZ015796@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:01:57 -0800
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
From: Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <511E92E9.6080709@isi.edu>
References: <511E92E9.6080709@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:50:34 -0000

(A) yes
(B) yes
(C) yes, option ii), a) which requires no changes for anyone.


At 11:56 2/15/2013, Joe Touch wrote:
>Hi, all,
>
>The IESG has reviewed draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options and is holding the document up on two key concerns:
>
>    I. the lack of a registry for magic numbers
>
>    II. potential for prefix collision within the set of magic numbers
>        supported in a single implementation

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email