Hi Warren, Many thanks for the Yes position and for the positive comments on the shepherd writeup ... two comments as shepherd are inline ...
Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 5:10 PM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcp...@ietf.org; Black, David <david.bl...@emc.com>; > tcpinc-cha...@ietf.org; Black, David <david.bl...@emc.com>; tcpinc@ietf.org > Subject: Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: (with > COMMENT) > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-17: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd like to echo what others have said, especially Adam's Section 4 comment, > and Benoit's "what is the actual experiment?" - if this doesn't explain what > the experiment will test, perhaps it should be Std Track? (Section 9, while > nice, doesn't really cover this). Just because it is new / untested doesn't > mean that it cannot be standard and then updated later. [David>] "new/untested" is the major reason. The Transport Area has a practice of applying Experimental status to TCP changes until there is sufficient "soak time" (e.g., operational experience) to demonstrate that they don't break anything. > I was also confused by the "option kind" - I'd assumed that it was simply a > term of art for TCP option, but seeing as Spencer is also mystified I'm > guessing not -- for my own education, can you please explain? [David>] The "term of art" explanation is correct, e.g., see: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#tcp-parameters-1 . > Also, once again a nice shepherd writeup from David. > _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list Tcpinc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
