On Jul 5, 2012, at 22:48, Alissa Cooper wrote: > With the changes to this draft in the -02 version, I'm having a little > trouble seeing its purpose. It basically now seems like a shell for the > recommendation in 3.3, with the analysis stuffed into appendices. But given > that there is no stable proposal for the actual TCP option to be implemented, > what is the purpose for advancing this document right now? I think I've heard > that folks "needed to know what to implement," but does this document really > resolve that problem given that even within the space of TCP-option-based > solutions for this, there are multiple different proposals, none of which has > been standardized? This document made more sense when it was just a > comparison of the different potential solutions spaces.
Fully agree with Alissa. An comparison of options would be fine. But 3.3 and other text go beyond a comparison. I also don't understand why INTAREA is entertaining work that is clearly intending to define new TCP options. None of the -abdo- drafts have been presented in TCPM or even discussed on the mailing list. (My guess is that the authors know that this would never get traction in TCPM and are venue shopping.) Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
