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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

It is "surprising" that you don't support this document (if I read your
view correctly), as you were one of the motivators of this I-D. During
the last few years, and in many opportunities, you have insisted that
"we should formally deprecate ICMP SQ", etc.

Given that the I-D is already good enough, the height of irony is that
more resources are being wasted discussing whether we're wasting energy,
rather than adopting the doc, possibly rev'ing it once more, WGLC and
publish.

Sigh..

P.S.: It makes me wonder that we, at the IETF, do not care about our
specs being outdated and irrelevant.

Fernando




On 06/01/2011 02:58 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
> +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
>>
> 

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1