Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

I am finding myself in agreement with others, PS is the correct status.

Thank you Neal for the good siting of RFC7127 with respect to PS,

Regards,
Rod

> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 3:49 AM Praveen Balasubramanian
> <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > RACK is fundamental enough, subsumes TLP, and has enough implementation and deployment. My vote is for PS status.
> 
> Personally, I agree with Praveen, that "Proposed Standard" is
> appropriate, given my understanding of the definition from
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#section-3.1 :
> 
>    3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
>    ...
>    A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
>    design choices, has received significant community review, and
>    appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
> 
>    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
>    required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
>    Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
>    usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
>    designation.
> 
> There are several independent and very widely deployed implementations
> of RACK at this point.
> 
> best regards,
> neal
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org