On 7/6/2012 12:39 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
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.)
FWIW, this doc discusses existing alternatives, including proposed ones
that have been documented, based on pros/cons. It doesn't make an
assessment of the viability of approaches as ways forward in the IETF.
(and I agree it should probably not make any single positive
recommendation; it might be OK to indicate which solutions aren't
viable, though)
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
