[tcpm] intended status of UTO

"Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov> Tue, 04 November 2008 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [] (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0069A28C119; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 06:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75BA28C119 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 06:36:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x72h--1yJLDn for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 06:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272843A67AA for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 06:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov []) by ndjsnpf03.ndc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C2E2D803A; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:36:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov (ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov []) by ndjsppt03.ndc.nasa.gov (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mA4EalNY017026; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:36:47 -0600
Received: from NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov ([]) by ndjsxgw04.ndc.nasa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:36:48 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:36:47 -0600
Message-ID: <B5A5E01F9387F4409E67604C0257C71E706737@NDJSEVS25A.ndc.nasa.gov>
Thread-Topic: intended status of UTO
Thread-Index: Ack+isRnejiC/BZmSpyO+TiWeCz6Wg==
From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov>
To: tcpm@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2008 14:36:48.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5015E60:01C93E8A]
Subject: [tcpm] intended status of UTO
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Although UTO has finished last-call and been submitted
for publication, Magnus has noted that there seemed to
be a question during last call about its intended status
that wasn't conclusively resolved.

Our ADs would like to make sure that there isn't going
to be a problem with publishing this as proposed standard,
and need the WG's feedback in order to advance the document.

By my homework, the charter item for UTO was written for
a proposed standard.  When I checked the archives, it
looked like Pasi was the only WGLC commenter that argued
for experimental, and on the other hand, Joe, Mark,
Caitlin, and Toby all seemed to support it as proposed
standard.  Versions 04 through 09 of the draft include
"Intended status: Standards Track".

However, in the IETF 68 minutes, I found this:
  * Lars and chairs did not remember if this is going for experimental
    proposed. Tim Shepard has preference for experimental.
    - Tim Shepherd: in San Diego asked this explicitly from chairs
      agenda bashing, they said the plan is for Experimental.
    - Lars: ok
tcpm mailing list