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

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Thu, 24 June 2010 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.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 0F75F28C103 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, 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 Xka-BoH916Dy for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7BC3A6846 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o5O6f92V027564 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:41:10 -0500
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:41:08 +0300
Received: from mgw-sa01.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.47]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:41:08 +0300
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa01.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o5O6f8JD028470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:41:08 +0300
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.1 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-26-554224861; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:40:51 +0300
In-Reply-To: <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com> <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <2262C708-DF9A-4DD9-9378-D84C5AF330AC@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:40:58 +0300 (EEST)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2010 06:41:08.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A4FDCB0:01CB1368]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 06:41:06 -0000

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.

Lars

On 2010-6-9, at 19:28, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>> Filename:	 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize
>> Revision:	 00
>> Title:		 Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status
>> Creation_date:	 2010-06-09
>> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
>> Number_of_pages: 4
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never
>> seen widespread use be moved to Historic status.  The affected RFCs
>> are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379,
>> RFC1644 and RFC1693.