IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 06 July 2009 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 556BB3A6407 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, 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 u4q3fA-YZAnL for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail82.messagelabs.com (mail82.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B216E3A67DD for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1246859990!67064519!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.102.140]
Received: (qmail 13102 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2009 05:59:50 -0000
Received: from ads40.surrey.ac.uk (HELO ads40.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.102.140) by server-10.tower-82.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2009 05:59:50 -0000
Received: from ads31.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.120.131]) by ads40.surrey.ac.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:59:50 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.209] ([86.3.114.249]) by ads31.surrey.ac.uk over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:59:49 +0100
Message-Id: <ACC0E5E1-8CB4-47B0-A30F-FC78ECE7A1E9@surrey.ac.uk>
From: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <4A518637.5040802@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:59:48 +0100
References: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2217B28763@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <fc0ff13d0906241711k44de4f77u8ec825e1ea151a1e@mail.gmail.com> <4A4317ED.1040905@gont.com.ar> <4A48F60A.7020602@gmail.com> <4A49CA1A.6060702@gont.com.ar> <4A4A2A73.0@isi.edu> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB2217BA03DF@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov> <4A4A3F1F.1060904@isi.edu> <4A4A56F5.30806@gont.com.ar> <4A4A5A23.1010009@isi.edu> <D04557F4-BEAF-4885-AF33-D9643AF5D049@surrey.ac.uk> <4A4EA787.4090004@isi.edu> <528F1AE1-67BC-42EA-AFF7-44A231970342@surrey.ac.uk> <4A4EF1C4.50305@isi.edu> <4A4EDFEB.4030008@gont.com.ar> <4A4F8136.2040004@isi.edu> <3CF80CBC-71B9-4EBB-8BEC-F41B73609B2F@surrey.ac.uk> <4A4FAD0A.5010502@isi.edu> <6DA8D914-3A76-415C-9DD3-2AFD8AE648F5@surrey.ac.uk> <4A4FC30F.2050709@isi.edu> <B01940FF-71BD-4C9E-B9BD-A241C4BA1740@surrey.ac.uk> <4A518637.5040802@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2009 05:59:49.0497 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8D48E90:01C9FDFE]
Cc: tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security
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: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:59:30 -0000

> I'll wait for you to show me where in the charter it explains that  
> we're
> here to document and standardize implementations, rather than to  
> decide
> what's better for the future of TCP.

The future of TCP only becomes real when implemented.

If you ignore implementations, you have no business "deciding the  
future of TCP".

Implementers detect pomposity, and route around it.

L.

DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/

<http://info.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email