IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options

gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Sat, 16 February 2013 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B6721F8523 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1UUcPt0qk9ve for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC1321F8415 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.erg.abdn.ac.uk (blake.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.210.30]) by spey.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EB592B4044; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:25:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from 212.159.18.54 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by www.erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:25:59 -0000
Message-ID: <cb1d1c6aa9cefb3a4993fd9f73f61c23.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=ftddAMG9fMWcHrUfPruxusQu7Gbt9b42Py+gtRVrLyBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <511ED5B3.1040803@mti-systems.com> <511ED5F2.4030100@mti-systems.com> <CAK6E8=ftddAMG9fMWcHrUfPruxusQu7Gbt9b42Py+gtRVrLyBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:25:59 -0000
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] request for feedback - proposed update to draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:26:02 -0000

I've thought about this and also think the proposed approach is simple and
sufficient.

+1

- If a specific value is requested value and this has already been
assigned, I think it could be wise for IANA to confirm that the value will
be shared with the other entries.

Gorry

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:
>> On 2/15/2013 2:56 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's what we need to know:
>>>
>>> 1. do you agree with change (A)?
>>>
>>> 2. do you agree with change (B)?
>>>
>>> 3. do you agree with change (C)?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A) YES
>>
>> B) YES (but should be clear that requesters can "suggest" a value)
>>
>> C) YES (prefer option i)
>
> same votes as Wes and Joe.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wes Eddy
>> MTI Systems
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> tcpm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email