IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcpm] A clarification about draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 05 November 2015 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403541ACE34 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Zmh9kpQTPUVO for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no (mail-out4.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::15]) (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 33C8A1ACE50 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZuIYt-0006vK-HB for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:18:35 +0100
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZuIYs-0007C4-U5 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:18:35 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB6F97E6-7EBE-45F3-A1D6-40ECF39BEB14@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:18:34 +0100
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 4 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 9 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 34843 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 8966F2418D987289B55E127D676326F22D7E0D41
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 8236 max/h 17 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/zsweo0DEIiqXPkpkhGbXlB3B148>
Subject: [tcpm] A clarification about draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:18:39 -0000

Hi all,

I just watched the video of TCPM and noticed a minor confusion at the end about what the plan really is - because draft-welzl-tcpm-tcb-sharing just contains a table contrasting RFC 2140 to implementations, and are we aiming at Informational or a recommendation?

Our plan is to update RFC 2140 to bring it in line with today's reality - what is currently implemented. I think Informational is still fine as status (but open to debate if people feel otherwise).

Why didn't we write RFC2140bis but a separate document? Because one of the chairs suggested this as a way forward, rather than doing a full first version of RFC2140bis, given that we believed that just showing this table and opening it for discussion is the best way to get this started.

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email