IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Sun, 17 November 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
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 0B318120111 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 07:27:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93TSeGYY5NOX for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 07:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 573ED120112 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 07:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD46525A12; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:14 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1574004434; bh=COT5s//MSuh797XJIJ3BGz5MESgB4BwSjP8bhXG0iLY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=C4dFZLpjqVSCSQlqrIrcqMgCzgYrZ/xh0+xqIIDJxLPwygVq7+2HRR0QrBdFsWwkI cEB2ttcBR37vwqsFJHhtkgEKcpjlBRNBJ1rPQpFw8dL/0hC5qzpyoOQQWm+cUREOGi dwExzN6CBX/f34N0s8IAOFOqxpiUKd9Oy6TNSTNU=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIkRS2wTVAmM; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de [134.108.29.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from RZNT8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([169.254.3.61]) by rznt8101.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::bd73:d6a9:24d7:95f1%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 16:27:13 +0100
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack
Thread-Index: AQHVl/tzi6/BEnORi0m/iGBJGQTSaKePBxAAgABZmwCAACZXkQ==
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 15:27:13 +0000
Message-ID: <6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D513A53@rznt8114.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de>
References: <903982D2-36DE-428D-A7C5-D3C389C95E9A@lurchi.franken.de> <MW2PR2101MB1049C3BE2424A5C3C58E0B24B6720@MW2PR2101MB1049.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>, <CADVnQynqK_5i9nXJ2tsZrsp1r2n5q=PsFqjoVdHBS-+Ecg1Caw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADVnQynqK_5i9nXJ2tsZrsp1r2n5q=PsFqjoVdHBS-+Ecg1Caw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EC6417807D9754DA64F3087E2E2E03E2D513A53rznt8114rzntrzd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/fwDLH03i-yhVrPoOD-6a_ReTxGs>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 15:27:20 -0000

+1 for PS as individual contributor



BTW, when TCPM adopted the document, support was already very strong, as documented in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/XnQPMWzJyTcP8OZ8n4JPGaMgdXM . I think we already discussed PS as potential target back then, but it was too early to know. Now PS seems more than appropriate.



Michael (with no hat)





Von: Neal Cardwell<mailto:ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. November 2019 15:10
An: Praveen Balasubramanian<mailto:pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Michael Tuexen<mailto:Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions<mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack



On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 3:49 AM Praveen Balasubramanian
<pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> RACK is fundamental enough, subsumes TLP, and has enough implementation and deployment. My vote is for PS status.

Personally, I agree with Praveen, that "Proposed Standard" is
appropriate, given my understanding of the definition from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#section-3.1 :

   3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
   ...
   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices, has received significant community review, and
   appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.

There are several independent and very widely deployed implementations
of RACK at this point.

best regards,
neal

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email