Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of SACK recovery entry drafty

Ethan Blanton <> Wed, 02 September 2009 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03BE3A6BA4 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Bcur-kvQhAz for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23423A6954 for <>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1MidUQ-000Pn6-LW; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:14:22 +0000
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 3000) id D91273BC9B; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:14:17 -0400
From: Ethan Blanton <>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <>
Message-ID: <20090902001417.GA25655@colt>
Mail-Followup-To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <>, "" <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-GnuPG-Fingerprint: A290 14A8 C682 5C88 AE51 4787 AFD9 00F4 883C 1C14
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of SACK recovery entry drafty
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:14:10 -0000

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] spake unto us the following wisdom:
> Hello, the authors of the SACK Recovery Entry draft:
> have given a couple presentations to the WG now and asked if it
> could be considered as an item for the WG for Proposed Standard (at
> least I'm assuming PS because the I-D says "Intended Status: Standards
> Track" ...).  If I'm not mistaken, there has been some positive feedback
> on the most recent incarnation, though not a lot, and not really any
> negative feedback that I could see.
> As chairs, David and I are asking the WG to voice whether we should:
> A) adopt this as a WG item for Proposed Standard
> B) NOT adopt this as a WG item
> C) wait to decide (not ready)

I believe that this draft contains some good ideas, and codifies a
number of things that I think are generally a good idea.
Specifically, using IsLost from RFC 3517 as an indicator that loss
recovery can be entered.

I believe that have not read the Aug 5 version of this draft, but a
previous version that I read required some editorial work, and I had a
few technical nits.  WG feedback on this draft should be able to
correct these minor issues.  (I will provide my two cents, of course.)

As to what status to give the draft, I leave that up to the WG.


The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764