Subject: Re: [tcpm] intended status of UTO

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:51:22 +0100 (MEZ)

Folks,

Since all the draft versions included

 "Intended status: Standards Track"

since more than 24 months without interruption, and this time
span included the WGLC period -- without complaints coming even
far close to WG consensus --, changing this aim *now* would not
make sense for me, unless strong new arguments can be shown up.

Don't forget:  This WG is chartered to maintenance and
minor extensions of TCP.  As this draft closes a gap in
existing specifications, it does precisely that, and it
should aim at an appropriate level on the Standards Track.

For all these reasons, I strongly support *not changing*
the intended status now.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm