Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt

["Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

> It's good but should not be required.  Meeting attendance isn't required and officially all IETF business is supposed to happen on the list. So holding up work to involve meetings should not ever happen IMO. 

Meeting attendance is not required. Still, I don't understand why not running an adoption call about two weeks after posting -00 really holds up work.

TCPM is not the only working group that has a high bar for adopting new work, and I think being conservative regarding std track TCP changes has always been a community consensus (e.g., our previous charter even told us that every new TCPM milestone requires IESG approval - that was certainly too conservative). Also, in TCPM review cycles are unfortunately a rather scarce resource, and the chairs have to consider this as well when adopting new work. All this has nothing to do with this draft specifically.
 
Regarding draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo, I am particularly interested in more feedback from implementers and users before starting the formal adoption call. We usually get very valuable feedback from implementers during meetings, and that would be one reason not to rush right now - but it is the feedback I am interested in, not the meeting. If corresponding aspects are discussed on the list before the next meeting, I'll be more than happy as well.

Thus, instead of further arguing about process aspects, I am more interested in thoughts on:

* From designers of TCP extensions requiring more option space: Is draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo a good solution for your needs and thus the right way to move forward?

* From implementers: Are there deployment issues beyond what is described in the draft already? And, would this mechanism be implemented in the Internet? 

Michael