Re: [tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

Yoshi,

Are you expecting everyone who stuck their hand up at IETF-106 in 
Singapore to repeat their opinion? Or is the ML call primarily meant to 
look for people with opinions who were not present? So far, the only 
opinions on the ML have repeated those in the f2f mtg, for which the 
minutes said:

Yoshi: PS: 8, EXP: 2, don't care: 8

In context, "don't care" meant "either" (not "don't care about the draft").

To repeat my opinion given verbally:

  * I'm happy  with either PS or EXP.
  * On balance, PS, 'cos when making a change to the TCP wire protocol
    putting EXP or PS in an RFC header doesn't make any difference to
    whether the change can be reversed. So, it's better to be clear how
    serious we have to be about getting it right.
  * Making it PS would make the header flags process faster, and add
    weight to the internal corporate cases need to allocate time for
    implementing this (and implementing supporting stuff like offload)
  * but both those are less important than getting it right.

Bob

On 03/01/2020 09:17, Yoshifumi Nishida wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This might be because some folks are on winter break, but it seems 
> that we don't have much feedback on this.
> I am thinking about this a bit and start wondering if this may mean 
> our general feelings are "either status is fine" or there are some 
> other reasons.
> If this is the case, I am thinking exp status might be suitable as PS 
> generally requires explicit supports (such as the case for TCP RACK)
> If you could provide any opinions or comments, we will appreciate very 
> much!
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoshi
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:17 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com 
> <mailto:nsd.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi folks,
>
>     We would like to get feedback for the intended status
>     of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn.
>     The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but
>     we've seen some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft
>     during Singapore meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check
>     the consensus on it.
>
>     There are some on-going related discussions such as flag
>     registration policy, SCE, ECN++, etc, however, we believe the
>     intended status discussions is independent from them and can
>     proceed it separately. (If you have concerns on it, please share
>     your opinion here)
>
>     We appreciate your feedback.
>
>     Thanks,
>     --
>     Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/