[tsvwg] ECN experimentation draft - tactics
"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 05:16 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.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 DACC2129656 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:16:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.from=David.Black@dell.com header.d=dell.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=c472oHUy; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=WZImmiGW
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 5Yqd69ENVHMd for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.149.220]) (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 8B265129637 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: s=smtpout; d=dell.com; c=simple; q=dns; h=Received:From:Received:Received:X-DKIM:DKIM-Signature: X-DKIM:Received:Received:Received:To:Subject:Thread-Topic: Thread-Index:Date:Message-ID:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: MIME-Version:X-Sentrion-Hostname:X-RSA-Classifications; b=a53N/VLTSwsaZ+5Cvfo/AYzsMs9HIyPSu9AAbSFbz3jCSo23QI+UyODH QOcw4SBkV2xAPySo3dAB3WGo++x7G985J4sKaQojThrPZ7FXk0Y4sWttW Bot8xXq5I8Q1Mpc+vsOE6164OiiUZmKcS0Rv8/QJCYTA9SMHNCNlMOSjU c=;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1479359774; x=1510895774; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sRMqxZJIbHRH2SXROMXG5o3e8cbfAFdI9D6p2xrUXbU=; b=c472oHUypx1UrH3K3zkoTDswfy43WSSGri9PqeTDyFqz2X5LK7ug66Vu NUUQrZTplad294BECF0az3CUQVaUmtZyTGplzVK/v9u+AsEkWhWVanOa6 iWeLvws4C6CpqgfJgYns06wX+v8JTpNI5xpxqV5vVHIS3hO9wHmE5yrOE k=;
Received: from esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.99]) by esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Nov 2016 23:16:14 -0600
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com ([128.221.224.79]) by esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2016 11:16:14 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.158]) by mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id uAH5GDrl031925 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:16:13 -0500
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com uAH5GDrl031925
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1479359773; bh=+FPTPwOFeOVxUXmHtWMv5iEfMGw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=WZImmiGWHUL+AGnTlu4YdLQIsztEdWcPryGozxiUoBm4pcfMuTx1V6b4ORaKoa2AZ K4wgl3odiNznkQUa+BPS6UoxBt5Ocm0LLguq/pFKWvHKLyI7xtNvYvbFjZOL1ON7Og cskf6jmBy7Vklzt3qhNtVyHBLBZov2+O7nkcyzzE=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com uAH5GDrl031925
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd54.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:15:57 -0500
Received: from MXHUB305.corp.emc.com (MXHUB305.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.31]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id uAH5G0bj020610 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:16:00 -0500
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB305.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.31]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:15:59 -0500
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ECN experimentation draft - tactics
Thread-Index: AdJAkbkkoZijJ4MAQhaFH983Mp2ugQ==
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:15:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F749651@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.105.8.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/sc855FfwxuBHb8FIErl8Cd5KV4k>
Subject: [tsvwg] ECN experimentation draft - tactics
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 05:16:16 -0000
The plan from here on draft-black-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation: In my "copious spare time" today and tomorrow, I will prepare a -04 version that reflects meeting discussion and responds to most of Gorry's comments (and I will try to get a draft version of the minutes posted). There will be a WG adoption call on that -04 version of the draft. That -04 draft will contain "MUST NOT use" language for ECT(1). So ... READ THIS PARAGRAPH TWICE ;-) - A WG adoption call is **NOT** the same as a WG Last Call. The question for a WG adoption call is whether the draft is a reasonable starting point for the work. WG adoption of a draft does not determine the WG position on technical issues in the draft, in contrast to WGLC, which does. In particular, it is completely reasonable to support WG adoption of a draft even when one has serious disagreements with some of its contents, and it is likewise completely reasonable for a WG to make serious changes to a draft after adoption. Thanks, --David -------------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer Dell EMC, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754 David.Black@dell.com <=== NEW === --------------------------------------------------------
- [tsvwg] ECN experimentation draft - tactics Black, David