Re: [tcpm] 2581 implementation report

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Mark Allman wrote:
> Attached is a short implementation report to send to the IESG when the
> WG is ready to forward 2581bis for publication as a draft standard.
> Please take a look at it and let me know if you have anything to add
> and/or have heartburn with anything in the writeup.
>
> (I am just floating this by the WG for opinions.  Clearly we need to do
> a WGLC on the document itself before anything is forwarded over to the
> IESG.)

Have all the features of the spec been implemented by at least two 
independent implementations?  I don't see the writeup clearly 
answering that question.

Half-aside: At different times, different folks have had varying views 
on what "all the features" mean -- whether it means every 
'may/should/must' (lower or uppercase) or something larger, at the 
very least some more detail than "fast retransmit -- check!" would 
likely be helpful.

Also, as most testing and observation references point to the work 
that was done prior to 2581 revision, you might want to add an 
explicit statement about how these changes should or shouldn't matter 
from the interoperability and implementation (i.e.: have the new 
modifications been implemented as well?) perspective.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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