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

"Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com> Thu, 24 June 2010 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ananth@cisco.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 6C6193A69BD for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 KhsL3q7F9k4M for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8E33A6889 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADc+I0yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACfOHGnZppZhSEEg14
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,475,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="217227689"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2010 18:17:21 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5OIHIvL005489; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:17:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.176]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:17:20 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:17:19 -0700
Message-ID: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC580A0CE306@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB48105A5A82@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
Thread-Index: AcsTaELvChlaGVTORWuANEwU7pfW3QAWo8PAAAGP6oA=
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com><33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com><2262C708-DF9A-4DD9-9378-D84C5AF330AC@nokia.com> <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB48105A5A82@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
To: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]" <wesley.m.eddy@nasa.gov>, "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2010 18:17:20.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C3F0450:01CB13C9]
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: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:17:18 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[ASRC AEROSPACE CORP]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:34 AM
> To: Lars Eggert; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of 
> >Lars Eggert
> >Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:41 AM
> >To: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> >Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >since we're not meeting in Maastricht, I might as well ask 
> this now: Do 
> >folks believe we should go forward with making these extensions 
> >historic? In that case, I'll ask the chairs to do a 
> consensus poll on 
> >adopting this document as a WG work item.
> >
> 
> 
> Ok, consider the mail from Lars the opening of this consensus 
> to adopt poll. :)  In the next two weeks, if people could 
> respond whether they:
> 
> 1) Support this document for development towards publication 
> as an Informational RFC via the TCPM working group
> 
> 2) Do not support the document as a TCPM work item.

I have already communicated earlier that the TCP alternate checksum
option needs to be removed from this list. Reason being it is still
being used and there are proposals out there that is trying to make use
of this option. Other than that point I am fine with this draft moving
forward.

-Anantha