Re: [tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

This might be because some folks are on winter break, but it seems that we
don't have much feedback on this.
I am thinking about this a bit and start wondering if this may mean our
general feelings are "either status is fine" or there are some other
reasons.
If this is the case, I am thinking exp status might be suitable as PS
generally requires explicit supports (such as the case for TCP RACK)
If you could provide any opinions or comments, we will appreciate very much!

Thanks,
--
Yoshi

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:17 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> We would like to get feedback for the intended status
> of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn.
> The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but we've seen
> some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft during Singapore
> meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check the consensus on it.
>
> There are some on-going related discussions such as flag registration
> policy, SCE, ECN++, etc, however, we believe the intended status
> discussions is independent from them and can proceed it separately. (If you
> have concerns on it, please share your opinion here)
>
> We appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs.
>
>
>