IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 10 December 2008 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE37F3A6B9F; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:03:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610643A6B9F for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:03:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvleSOjnB3G8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D343A67A5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74] ([IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBAD2aZr059468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:02:37 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Message-Id: <F4C852B0-1D36-4EF8-819F-4BE04A0107BF@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E85CCB8@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:02:35 +0200
References: <9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A3C6EEA@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com><200811121548.mACFmKLY007025@venus.xmundo.net><9FA859626025B64FBC2AF149D97C944A010748D4@CORPUSMX80A.corp.emc.com><200812030857.mB38v6ND009886@venus.xmundo.net><754037F5-4ADA-4A74-A6A0-99EB3ACB5DFD@nokia.com> <200812030935.mB39Z5P5007692@venus.xmundo.net> <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E85CCB8@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.fit.nokia.com [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:02:39 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8741/Wed Dec 10 09:07:43 2008 on fit.nokia.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: "weddy@grc.nasa.gov" <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "david.borman@windriver.com" <david.borman@windriver.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, "Black_David@emc.com" <Black_David@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0573653628=="
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

I think we need others to speak up, so we can come to consensus on  
what to do here.

Lars

On 2008-12-4, at 3:09, Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:29 AM
>>
>>> Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus
>>> had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement  
>>> on
>>> whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point
>>> to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the
>>> rough side of the consensus.
>>
>> FWIW, my personal take is that adding a reference to that PDF can
>> address David's comments without having to add text back to the I-D.
>>
>
>
> My personal opinion is that this is going to be published as an
> RFC, and if all we need is a paragraph extracted from the other
> document to describe the issue, then we should do that rather
> than add a citation (dependency).  This keeps the RFC self-contained,
> and removes the issue of people not being able to find the
> other document 20 years from now, or misunderstanding the context
> of that document as some kind of approved supplement to the RFC.
>
> Just my < $0.02 :).


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email