Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 18 October 2007 14:19 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IiWE7-0000Wk-5b; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:19:55 -0400
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IiWE5-0000WJ-Tf for; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:19:53 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IiWE4-0000V5-HD for; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:19:52 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IiWDy-0003RB-0f for; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:19:52 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9IEJT5G001280; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:19:11 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pasi Sarolahti <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1322262210=="

Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
> Ok, I think you are right that it is hard to come up with well-defined
> experiments that would give some additional technical information about
> the UTO. But I don't understand where this requirement for experiments
> comes from. I also ask, because this "what is the experiment?" question
> has come up quite a few times during the past couple of years for
> Experimental documents in different WGs, and RFC 2026 does not say
> anything about experiments:
>    The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
>    is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
>    is published for the general information of the Internet technical
>    community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
>    editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
>    adequate coordination with the standards process (see below)....
> (I believe many of the proposed TCP extensions are part of a research
> project.)

That has rarely been the case; more typically, the 'research' is being
conducted by the proposer and the Internet community at large to
determine the efficacy of a spec, and the 'experiment' is part of that
'research or development effort'.


tcpm mailing list