Re: [tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for taking long time. After several discussions among the chairs,
we've concluded the rough consensus of the WG is that this document should
target PS.

As tcpm is a relatively small community, it's sometimes not easy to assess
the consensus in the group.
However, as far as we've checked, most of people don't have issues on
publishing it as a PS doc.

This will mean the updated version of this draft will require further
detailed reviews since the current version was written for an experimental
doc. This might take extra time compared to publishing an EXP draft.
In addition, there are possibilities that other ECN proposals will be
published in the future (and they can be PS as well). This draft should be
carefully reviewed not to prevent such activities.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:17 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> We would like to get feedback for the intended status
> of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn.
> The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but we've seen
> some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft during Singapore
> meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check the consensus on it.
>
> There are some on-going related discussions such as flag registration
> policy, SCE, ECN++, etc, however, we believe the intended status
> discussions is independent from them and can proceed it separately. (If you
> have concerns on it, please share your opinion here)
>
> We appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs.
>
>
>