IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 19 February 2013 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A923A21F8BF0 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:25:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.665, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYZTML+MvDWk for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDCD21F8B90 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.184.177] ([128.9.184.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1JHNLFY023293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5123B50A.1050001@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:23:22 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
References: <511E92E9.6080709@isi.edu> <51239189.2060504@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <51239189.2060504@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 19 Feb 2013 17:25:22 -0000

On 2/19/2013 6:51 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On 02/15/2013 02:56 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> 1. do you agree with change (A)?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> 2. do you agree with change (B)?
>
> Yes, provided that "OK to indicate multiple assignees" means that the
> multiple assignees should all agree.

So what if they don't?

Or, more specifically, what if they:

	- refuse
	- cannot be contacted

Or should we just say that the IANA list is the 'first to file', and 
don't really list anything else?

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email