IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages (draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench)

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 14 January 2011 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EEE3A6B93 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:57:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPt4ATm8+sv0 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B803A6B91 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (jack.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.73]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p0EExwNZ007442; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (www.obdev.at [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA1F2B76529; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:59:58 -0500 (EST)
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages (draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench)
In-Reply-To: <4D267F98.6050508@mti-systems.com>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Cadillac Ranch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma25836-1"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:59:58 -0500
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Message-Id: <20110114145958.7EA1F2B76529@lawyers.icir.org>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:57:35 -0000

> Realistically, if there isn't an RFC, 2 years from now someone will
> come and re-write Fernando's document and ask to have an RFC
> published and we'll waste more time on the same discussion, so I'm
> in favor of blasting this through the process and getting it
> published as long as there's rough consensus on it.  We publish
> plenty of similarly useless book-keeping RFCs without controversy.

I agree with this and with Fred's notion.  It isn't a problem, but this
document is completely benign and shouldn't "waste time".  Nobody has
brought up anything but process issues (i.e., nobody is arguing for
reacting to SQ) so lets just call rough consensus and move on.

allman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email