[tsvwg] closing L4S issue #23 on implementation status

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F69F12011F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:23:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 yPP86Pfqbcg9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf31.google.com (mail-qv1-xf31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E37F6120020 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 07:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf31.google.com with SMTP id g6so8720966qvy.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:23:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=kdlossZeFe4v/KBVo7Wmy6NE3wo2y4XudYPZW17M3EA=; b=bGjfrv3hJ4+yTK8499wid4M6a1ciX5BauDOjWe9rlPWkwqV1LsPP0VDRwALHcmKBoG CYFyReK8Vo2EVu6ny1BkQT2e+sqmn/nVHRBMQSxL3xUyqoFyblaNWLXjSLBXwjGpNJln 9GrEXYoPEyDDkr/dcpehJ6I3EH+jTfBXaC+oMU+wdpPTLULUNMKj2lrr4T3oC/s3PERK jgf38hxtEEMx5wV+Bps51idYeYCNZXZTb5ToqYXQS3DQ7bBc2AxkOdIFz5F6a0koOM+3 cdlNWTeTm45oRzo9xUeGVR/iImQX9QGO/Ck14TB3rqHZycoqUDyaPil6ZXfc10OiT/e2 gfWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=kdlossZeFe4v/KBVo7Wmy6NE3wo2y4XudYPZW17M3EA=; b=axffv9CORe0Zpltr9Pyho1raxqx/TE2SZ8EbXS+zYsPrKwPez3Kq19YRoU/syvY++w uxJEXuKxXu+K6NkX1WhPGFOBdlIp+A5QHudGyUsVl7RuVjpx250bjmQzU0d9y4SXDcx4 xaxHygXWJ96NcOT0aDebsgCyMnxqzXrAFZTtwGWDD432AN4JVG3V3So3t93DsWzQU5cd 00Vl6uwcBriu/3xyJpVMU5WmBYgr7dzwBaXixj4ePQwwQNH0xnTvzBKJag8BesrnX/QO DdKIhEglfN/OdcRtzdvkx7bGaDJmi9DILMuzz6GDBr0/6zMhdlwu1fDfCsML9uvMklwd 2SFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUSm1rxzx3vufbr7MDnHWs7YZQR9+c/52qLsWjhJUluLqmyU+Vt +y0PBnD79vN2+nm0spG6YntK99SUnQo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7ZcDHtDhRkcu8sVvjqdmGWoTN6AlkKPeSYVprS3N/JuwkuCM1dj8v0eF8cvoRagEyrVMQkQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1150:: with SMTP id b16mr28260071qvt.71.1580829792783; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.100.1.112] (rrcs-69-135-1-122.central.biz.rr.com. [69.135.1.122]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w16sm5698942qkj.135.2020.02.04.07.23.12 for <tsvwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Feb 2020 07:23:12 -0800 (PST)
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <ecd3eec7-c560-4c0f-3886-ce4eee3c426b@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 10:23:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/m3WIdvsThGNxk2OFzOavXXJCpzQ>
Subject: [tsvwg] closing L4S issue #23 on implementation status
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:23:16 -0000

It looks we have mostly converged on the L4S issue tracker entry for 
implementation status:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/tsvwg/ticket/23

The suggestion from Jake to have a short implementation status section 
(based on RFC 7942 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7942) seems like a 
fine idea, and something that should be done anyways (it's a BCP, and 
the information is useful for people reading Experimental RFCs).

Assuming I've understood things correctly here, if we can get a short 
implementation status section added to the updated drafts, this will be 
enough to close that issue.  Please correct me, if this doesn't sound good.