IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-03.txt backwards compatibility

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 04 January 2008 18:30 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArJ2-0000nf-Jr; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:08 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JArJ0-0000na-Qe for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:06 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArJ0-0000nS-GG for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:06 -0500
Received: from pork.icsi.berkeley.edu ([192.150.186.19]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JArJ0-0005aa-0V for tcpm@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:06 -0500
Received: from guns.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by pork.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m04ITxkF006252; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:29:59 -0800
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (adsl-69-222-35-58.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net [69.222.35.58]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C937713C58D8; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:29:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D38B329395; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:28:58 -0500 (EST)
To: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] Re: draft-ietf-tcpm-ecnsyn-03.txt backwards compatibility
In-Reply-To: <200801041813.m04IDQCG008957@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: And We Danced
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:28:58 -0500
Message-Id: <20080104182858.1D38B329395@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: Aleksandar Kuzmanovic <akuzma@northwestern.edu>, "K. K. Ramakrishnan" <kkrama@research.att.com>, Amit Mondal <a-mondal@northwestern.edu>, tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
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="===============0810612598=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

> The draft talks of itself as "a modification to RFC 3168". Will ECN+
> be marked as "UPDATES RFC3168" in the RFC index?
> 
> At least that will help ensure anyone who implements based on the
> RFC index will not have a choice between RFC3168 and ECN+

Without having considered this for more than a few seconds, I think it
is reasonable to think this will be labeled as an 'update' to RFC3168.
If someone thinks that would be somehow bogus, please speak up.

allman




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email