IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Tue, 23 March 2010 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
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 DAD863A68C0 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, 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 iDpzy6sjTSnj for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229FE3A683E for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (jack.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.73]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o2NJhBGq010883; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D45BAFA6B; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:43:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <4BA9171A.6030804@isi.edu>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Just the Way You Are
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma6607-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:43:11 -0400
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20100323194311.B2D45BAFA6B@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:43:00 -0000

Joe-

> IMO, the threshold for changing TCP ought to be "do we absolutely need
> it", not "absent big issues and seems reasonable".

I don't buy that bar.  Some of your work is not absolutely needed.
(Mine, too, BTW.)  Doesn't mean it isn't useful.

The "bar" is a fuzzy thing.  You don't find the cost-v-benefit for this
worthwhile.  Fine.  I assume the chairs are noting that.  Others find it
worthwhile.  I assume the chairs are noting that, as well.  So, lets
just---you and I---consider our points made.

allman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email