IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

"Duke, Martin" <Martin.Duke@boeing.com> Wed, 09 June 2010 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Duke@boeing.com>
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 5D1853A67E7 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SnSEZxLF6fg4 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB7C3A676A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o59JPfjm025747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o59JPeQg016126; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-04.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.64.250]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o59JPeq1016118 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-11V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.84]) by XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.250]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:25:40 -0700
From: "Duke, Martin" <Martin.Duke@boeing.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:25:38 -0700
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
Thread-Index: AcsH8N/0MaqoTcy+Q5CcdnXAnlnj8wAF06fQ
Message-ID: <CD4F357FF5D0244B926B336314E71667254AE0B020@XCH-NW-11V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com> <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:25:41 -0000

Long overdue!

Is the intent to eventually free up those TCP option numbers for future use? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lars Eggert
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:28 AM
> To: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> Subject: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> 
> Quite possibly the most boring RFC ever. But at least it's 
> short. Comments welcome.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> > Filename:	 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize
> > Revision:	 00
> > Title:		 Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions 
> RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, 
> RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status
> > Creation_date:	 2010-06-09
> > WG ID:		 Independent Submission
> > Number_of_pages: 4
> > 
> > Abstract:
> > This document recommends that several TCP extensions that 
> have never 
> > seen widespread use be moved to Historic status.  The affected RFCs 
> > are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379,
> > RFC1644 and RFC1693.
> 
> Lars

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email