IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-06.txt

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 15 December 2020 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 BD3373A0E31; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:15:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-BV2hK0HjlH; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 458733A0E2F; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:15:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx11.uio.no ([129.240.10.83]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1kp5UN-0005R9-4E; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:15:19 +0100
Received: from ti0182q160-1994.bb.online.no ([212.251.170.224] helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mail-mx11.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.93.0.4) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1kp5UL-00095F-Tl; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:15:19 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Message-Id: <1752C5EA-6500-4C1E-B8DB-65F5E5F049CB@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DEECF238-E35B-40A5-BAB0-89A20510DC9F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:15:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: <67892C2A-2D3F-4C25-B071-ADAE95A6AC52@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <160634544894.28725.8891473900084027588@ietfa.amsl.com> <7F478CFF-A60E-4513-AFCB-1DEE985F9880@ifi.uio.no> <94c8342fcda84ede98e0591867cd8933@hs-esslingen.de> <CAAK044Sa-vEDZPamS=HqYMSvAMmm8kjZL6Mfr60+XO6cy0Hi4Q@mail.gmail.com> <6338D8C5-6485-47A3-ACB3-73DC7F641488@ericsson.com> <67892C2A-2D3F-4C25-B071-ADAE95A6AC52@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx11.uio.no: 212.251.170.224 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=212.251.170.224; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[192.168.1.11];
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 101EA869AC443BDC27741BD1F176E55AAA2998BF
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/zip5oqXknQZ4q33eKCutFFWCVUQ>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis-06.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 08:15:25 -0000

Hi,


> On Dec 15, 2020, at 4:51 AM, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> To the WG:
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m also still concerned about the appendix. I think a link to the expired draft and some summary discussion would be sufficient rather than copying the whole expired draft in the appendix that never reached any consensus in the group.
> 
> We have addressed these comments before

Indeed: this comment appears to refer to an earlier version of the draft.


> and disagree with them.
> 
> The material was available to the WG for several months and has received no objections except Mirja's during WGLC and Youshifumi’s now many months after WGLC.
> 
> The content of expired I-Ds can be removed from public view at any time, per:
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/internet-draft-removal/ <https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/internet-draft-removal/>
> 
> Finally, see the *explicit* instructions in the required boilerplate of every I-D:
> 
> 	...It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
>    reference material ...
> 
> I will let my co-authors address how to proceed.

You made our position clear; the next steps are at the discretion of the chairs at this point.

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email