IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-antispoof-05.txt (Ends 2 Feb 2007)

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Sat, 03 February 2007 09:31 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDHFW-0004qW-V8; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:31:58 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDHFV-0004qR-JD for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:31:57 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170] helo=mgw-ext11.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDHFU-00058P-5l for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:31:57 -0500
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext11.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l139SiPj025821; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:28:56 +0200
Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.28]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:31:28 +0200
Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([10.162.253.6]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:31:25 +0200
In-Reply-To: <45C42E9F.3000107@isi.edu>
References: <20070118012440.GC1540@hut.isi.edu> <20070126174742.GF44355@hut.isi.edu> <20070202185415.GC35900@hut.isi.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702022117390.18960@netcore.fi> <45C42E9F.3000107@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <A97AA0B1-18FB-4CEA-931F-B5C192708204@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-antispoof-05.txt (Ends 2 Feb 2007)
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:31:40 +0200
To: ext Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2007 09:31:25.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[13301620:01C74776]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1300125611=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On 2007-2-3, at 8:41, ext Joe Touch wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> (As I already said earlier, I believe this is a document that  
>> should be IETF Last Called even if doing so is not required by  
>> RFC2026.)
>
> I'm not sure every document wouldn't fall into that category; I  
> disagree that this particular document should be treated uniquely.

IETF Last Calls for non-standards-track docs are common, especially  
when a document should be brought to the attention to the wider  
community due to its importance or impact. (For example, we IETF-last- 
called QuickStart and the fragmentation-harmful documents in the  
recent past.)

I agree with Pekka that antispoof is sufficiently important that the  
wider community should be notified of its availability for review.

Lars



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email