IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Mon, 22 March 2010 20:18 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 C2C313A69C5 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, 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 r5c8LtjE-oq9 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6423A6880 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:50 -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 o2MKJ6P5029432; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D376BB91E92; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:19:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <6537EA7D-E91C-4751-8595-C8232206F202@surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Glory Days
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma53434-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:19:06 -0400
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20100322201906.D376BB91E92@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: 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: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:18:55 -0000

I don't track this stuff very closely.  So,

  - If 1323bis is not happening then going with an independent document
    is fine with me.  

  - It just strikes me as strange to do both strands independently if we
    are in fact doing both strands.

  - 1323bis can always pick this up at some point and obsolete any small
    document (as we have done for instance with 5681 picking up 3390 and
    3042).

  - I need to see more justification before agreeing that this
    straight-to-BCP track is reasonable.

allman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email