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

"Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com> Fri, 25 June 2010 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rs@netapp.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 40F2D3A68FA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, 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 YdJWEqpFi1kY for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.netapp.com (mx3.netapp.com [217.70.210.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4C93A6845 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,480,1272870000"; d="scan'208";a="166931686"
Received: from smtp3.europe.netapp.com ([10.64.2.67]) by mx3-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2010 04:31:06 -0700
Received: from ldcrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com (emeaexchrs.hq.netapp.com [10.65.251.110]) by smtp3.europe.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o5PBTkjA006996 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.65.251.107]) by ldcrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:30:55 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:30:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5FDC413D5FA246468C200652D63E627A0935F672@LDCMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <2262C708-DF9A-4DD9-9378-D84C5AF330AC@nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
Thread-Index: AcsTaFT0Ejq/bdicTV6d+pWDLmbPggAdvrCg
References: <20100609151532.8E75E28C0D0@core3.amsl.com><33D3BDE9-7E8D-4DF0-B8D5-BFFC66CF9C99@nokia.com> <2262C708-DF9A-4DD9-9378-D84C5AF330AC@nokia.com>
From: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
To: <tcpm@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2010 11:30:55.0230 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFF659E0:01CB1459]
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: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:31:19 -0000

I'd support that, based on the recent discussions that the alternate
checksum option is not a viable method for better payload protection
anyway :)

Richard Scheffenegger
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2010 08:41
> To: tcpm@ietf.org Extensions
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00
> 
> Hi,
> 
> since we're not meeting in Maastricht, I might as well ask 
> this now: Do folks believe we should go forward with making 
> these extensions historic? In that case, I'll ask the chairs 
> to do a consensus poll on adopting this document as a WG work item.
> 
> Lars
> 
> On 2010-6-9, at 19:28, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> > 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.
> 
>