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

[Ethan Blanton <[e-mail]>]

Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon] spake unto us the following wisdom:
> Hello, the authors of the SACK Recovery Entry draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jarvinen-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry-01
> 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.

Ethan

-- 
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