Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

Mark Allman wrote:
> ...
>
>   - But, to me, the right thing to do here is to roll these changes
>     into the work item this WG already has going: 1323bis.  [...]

Going?  Gone ??
It's listed on <http://tools.IETF.ORG/wg/tcpm/>:

   Expired:
   draft-ietf-tcpm-1323bis                -01    2009-03-04  Expired

[ And, btw,   -00  was published  2008-01-29,
  so extrapolating linearly, I still hope for a -02 soon.
  But the confidence level of statistics based on a sample of size 2
  is rather small.  :-) ]

A significant part of my review comments from early in 2009 have been
addressed in the -01 draft version, but other, non-trivial, parts
have been deferred to the next update.  I cannot recall discussion
of this draft on the list since a very long time.


So it looks like the choice for the WG might be having a short document
that can be shipped by the end of this year (or even much faster),
or with a -1323bis in 5 years or so.

(Or would you prefer doing both?)

IIRC, Fernando's timestamp draft has been phrased as a BCP because
feedback from the WG (MPLS IETF?) indicated it would not be acceptable
to the WG with normative language, on the Standards Track.

I personally would not oppose to Standards Track, but I'm not the WG.


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+