RE: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

I think the document as stands (in your latest diffed version) seems fine. (I'm not an expert on SYN cookies though...)

Toby

________________________________

From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com]
Sent: Mon 05/11/2007 17:20
To: ext Joe Touch
Cc: ext Alfred HÎnes; tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

On 2007-11-5, at 17:30, ext Joe Touch wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> There were some suggestions discussed in response to Joe's and 
>> Alfred's
>> comments that I haven't made, because the rest of the WG was silent,
>> which I interpreted as lack of consensus for the change. Speak up 
>> if you
>> disagree with this resolution.
>
> I have spoken before on this point in general. Apathy is not 
> consensus.
>
> Apathy can be a reason to not include a change, but that's the reason.
> Not consensus.

My understanding is that we have *had* consensus on what the document 
currently says about the two points in question (whether to include 
the UTO in both the SYN and the first non-SYN, and whether UTO is 
supposed to be transmitted reliably) since these points were 
discussed a few revisions back.

I'm not opposed to making changes if the consensus has changed. But I 
have difficulties determining whether this is the case. I'd 
appreciate some additional WG comments on this.

Lars 

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm