Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

> The draft looks fine to me to go forward.

Many thanks for the note!

I have a couple questions (with my hat off) ...

> Regarding the Proposed Standard vs. Experimental issue, I think this
> draft, like the other new TCP extensions, should first go to
> Experimental as a rule of thumb. I'm concerned about the increasing
> complexity and size of "the standards track" TCP implementation. It
> would be a good practice to have a careful evaluation in Experimental
> RFC phase before adding up things to standards track TCP that is
> expected to be implemented by most vendors.

(1) What 'careful evaluation' do you think should be done during
    Experimental?

    Or, put another way, how would we know that it was OK for UTO to
    later move to PS?

    My own opinion here is that this draft specifies a way to share some
    information and that is pretty benign.  I can't see where it hurts
    anything if stacks want to do it.  It is advisory information if
    stacks want to ignore it.  So, what's the real harm here in putting
    it on the standards track?  Or, what would be the benefit of going
    experimental?  My own answer to both questions is "very little".

(2) While I sympathize with the goal of keeping things simple and
    avoiding needless complexity, I do not believe that just because we
    put something on the standards track we expect it to be implemented
    in every TCP implementation.  Perhaps that is flawed reading of
    these things.

Just my two bits.

allman