Subject: [tcpm] poll for adoption of SACK recovery entry drafty

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:30:05 -0500

Hello, the authors of the SACK Recovery Entry draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jarvinen-tcpm-sack-recovery-entry-01
have given a couple presentations to the WG now and asked if it
could be considered as an item for the WG for Proposed Standard (at
least I'm assuming PS because the I-D says "Intended Status: Standards
Track" ...).  If I'm not mistaken, there has been some positive feedback
on the most recent incarnation, though not a lot, and not really any
negative feedback that I could see.

As chairs, David and I are asking the WG to voice whether we should:

A) adopt this as a WG item for Proposed Standard
B) NOT adopt this as a WG item
C) wait to decide (not ready)

Please let us know what you think.

---------------------------
Wes Eddy
Network & Systems Architect
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
Office: (216) 433-6682
---------------------------

---

From: Ethan Blanton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:14:17 -0400

> C) wait to decide (not ready)

I believe that this draft contains some good ideas, and codifies a
number of things that I think are generally a good idea.
Specifically, using IsLost from RFC 3517 as an indicator that loss
recovery can be entered.

I believe that have not read the Aug 5 version of this draft, but a
previous version that I read required some editorial work, and I had a
few technical nits.  WG feedback on this draft should be able to
correct these minor issues.  (I will provide my two cents, of course.)
;-)

As to what status to give the draft, I leave that up to the WG.

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

---

From: Alexander Zimmermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:38:02 +0200

Hi all,

since I have the feeling my last mail sent from my mobile is missing,
I vote again:

a) adopt this as a WG item for Proposed Standard

Alex

Am 01.09.2009 um 21:30 schrieb Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]:

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

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:32:02 -0500

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-MS00)[Verizon]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:30 PM
>

It looks like there's a fair amount of positive support (choice A) for
this based on both the mailing list and meeting feedback, so David and
I will add a milestone.  I'm guessing that 1 year from now is a reasonable
timeframe to say we'll have the document ready within for the milestone.
The authors can put in a draft-ietf-tcpm-... version at their leisure.