[tcpm] new version of rto-consider

"Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 19 October 2018 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 1BF85130EF2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pTMamImSn_Xu for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2CD5130EEC for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (envoy.icir.org [192.150.187.30]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id w9JDik4p007063 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 06:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.207] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D8EF425698 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org>
To: Extensions <tcpm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:44:49 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12r5523)
Message-ID: <FC27F0B7-E7FF-4083-A617-08D583A33A9C@icir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_F82B26E0-6C25-46EC-99F6-E3800C533AA6_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/SeomCwsGmAFIaSZD3Hxdh8ac5ag>
Subject: [tcpm] new version of rto-consider
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:44:51 -0000

Folks-

I have been coaxed into trying the rto-consider document again.  I
just posted an update.  It is draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-06.txt.

In the past, I think we haven't converged on this document because
it is a bit weird and that makes the process less than
straightforward.  The document is sort of strange in that it tries
to add requirements (a) where there haven't been any before, but (b)
where we already have existing solutions.

The biggest change in this version of the document is a new section
(the current section 2), which tries to address this weirdness and
set the context for the document and how it should be read.

I have circulated this version to a few folks informally and the
feedback I have received is "that helps".  So, I'd now like to ask
the broader community to take a look and see what you think.  I look
forward to your feedback.

allman