[tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv - Confirmation of discussion during IETF 89
"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 10:01 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA0C1A06A8 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
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 I08W8bRoVAxy for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail1.alcatel.com (hoemail1.alcatel.com [192.160.6.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5016C1A0051 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by hoemail1.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s2IA1UM3018911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:01:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s2IA1Unw026382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:01:30 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.146]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:01:30 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv - Confirmation of discussion during IETF 89
Thread-Index: Ac9CkQejKwbzWGacT/GEJPxAXXwu/Q==
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:01:29 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D2314B7@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/JmbTkT2lii09D8qXDo_wogF_Fig
Subject: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv - Confirmation of discussion during IETF 89
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:01:47 -0000
Hi all,
In London, we had a long discussion on the TCPM charter milestone ("Decide the intended status of the document on TCP support for rate-limited traffic"). In the room there was strong consensus that this document should be heading for Experimental status, given that further experimentation and operational experience with the mechanism is needed (e.g., regarding pacing). If there are any further thoughts on this, please speak up on the list in the next two weeks.
In addition, draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv recommends (for a long time already) to move RFC 2861 from Experimental to Historic. According to the feedback in the room, the TCPM working group seems to agree on that. This message thus intends to confirm that obsoleting RFC 2861 is consensus of the TCPM working group. Please let us know in the next two weeks if you disagree.
This message just deals with the formal status of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv, i.e., it is independent of the ongoing review discussions.
Thanks
Michael, Pasi, Yoshifumi
- [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-newcwv … Scharf, Michael (Michael)
- Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-new… Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-new… Scharf, Michael (Michael)
- Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-new… gorry