IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Mon, 14 June 2010 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
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 670563A68D8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 AlrRhvOUo+Ey for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E6E3A6781 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o5EDMELI019694 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:22:25 -0500
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:30 +0300
Received: from mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.48]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:29 +0300
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa02.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o5EDKQgb029173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:28 +0300
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.1 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-5--285807585"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:19 +0300
In-Reply-To: <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com> <33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <73940FF0-5B42-40DE-8F8F-EB4C10F714C0@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:20 +0300 (EEST)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2010 13:20:29.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C1337D0:01CB0BC4]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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, 14 Jun 2010 13:22:23 -0000

Hi,

On 2010-6-9, at 19:28, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> Quite possibly the most boring RFC ever. But at least it's short. Comments welcome.

I wanted to clarify that I'm not personally against (or for) any of the TCP extensions mentioned in the draft, especially the alternate checksum option. The criteria for including these RFCs here is that we had consensus to tag them as Historic when we published RFC4614. We can certainly change our mind about any of these extensions.

Lars

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>> Filename:	 draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize
>> Revision:	 00
>> Title:		 Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status
>> Creation_date:	 2010-06-09
>> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
>> Number_of_pages: 4
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never
>> seen widespread use be moved to Historic status.  The affected RFCs
>> are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379,
>> RFC1644 and RFC1693.
> 
> Lars<smime.p7s><ATT00001..txt>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email