Re: [tcpm] Intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-rack

PS +1 for same reasons people have mentioned

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 11:28 AM Rodney W. Grimes <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
wrote:

> I am finding myself in agreement with others, PS is the correct status.
>
> Thank you Neal for the good siting of RFC7127 with respect to PS,
>
> Regards,
> Rod
>
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 3:49 AM Praveen Balasubramanian
> > <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > RACK is fundamental enough, subsumes TLP, and has enough
> implementation and deployment. My vote is for PS status.
> >
> > Personally, I agree with Praveen, that "Proposed Standard" is
> > appropriate, given my understanding of the definition from
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7127#section-3.1 :
> >
> >    3.1.  Characterization of IETF Proposed Standard Specifications
> >    ...
> >    A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
> >    design choices, has received significant community review, and
> >    appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.
> >
> >    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
> >    required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
> >    Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
> >    usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
> >    designation.
> >
> > There are several independent and very widely deployed implementations
> > of RACK at this point.
> >
> > best regards,
> > neal
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcpm mailing list
> > tcpm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >
>
> --
> Rod Grimes
> rgrimes@freebsd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>