IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 06 January 2011 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 3C15D3A6C9B for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:57:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 GL-L-TXFpevQ for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826553A68D5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p06Hwjht022592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D2602D5.30608@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:58:45 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org chair" <tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, tsvwg list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench messages (draft-gont-tsvwg-source-quench)
References: <4D21F2FC.2090000@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <FE2AD841-7CAD-4A09-A766-73A1D5BE1F56@cisco.com> <068B22BC-E1B4-4C7F-99C5-3B8B483EB057@cisco.com> <20110106092048.GA14506@openss7.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110106092048.GA14506@openss7.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: p06Hwjht022592
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 17:57:01 -0000

+1 on both counts (agree with Fred, agree the WG should consume 
resources carefully)

Joe

On 1/6/2011 1:20 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Fred,
>
> Fred Baker wrote:                      (Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:35:09)
>>
>> I think my view is clear. There is no operational problem. The
>> working group can decide what it wants to do.
>>
>
> Well, I agree with you, Fred.  It is even more wasteful of the WG's
> time arguing whether it is wasteful of the WG's time.
>
> --brian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email