Re: [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-03.txt backwards compatibility

Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com> Fri, 04 January 2008 18:47 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArZu-0002cF-5v; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:47:34 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JArZt-0002c8-Mr for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:47:33 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArZt-0002c0-CJ for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:47:33 -0500
Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com ([17.148.16.76]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArZs-00061H-WE for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:47:33 -0500
Received: from mac.com (asmtp005-s [10.150.69.68]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout013/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m04IlLZI018612; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.150.186.176] (laptop176.icsi.berkeley.edu [192.150.186.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/asmtp005/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m04IlJ5Y000444; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:47:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20080104182858.1D38B329395@lawyers.icir.org>
References: <20080104182858.1D38B329395@lawyers.icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <7e9fe8691b7c4216c020a4bc62b0d9c5@mac.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sally Floyd <sallyfloyd@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-03.txt backwards compatibility
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:47:19 -0800
To: mallman@icir.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc: Aleksandar Kuzmanovic <akuzma@northwestern.edu>, "K. K. Ramakrishnan" <kkrama@research.att.com>, Amit Mondal <a-mondal@northwestern.edu>, tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

>> The draft talks of itself as "a modification to RFC 3168". Will ECN+
>> be marked as "UPDATES RFC3168" in the RFC index?
>>
>> At least that will help ensure anyone who implements based on the
>> RFC index will not have a choice between RFC3168 and ECN+
>
> Without having considered this for more than a few seconds, I think it
> is reasonable to think this will be labeled as an 'update' to RFC3168.
> If someone thinks that would be somehow bogus, please speak up.

Our intention was for this to be labeled as an update to RFC 3168.

Thanks,
- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/



_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm