Subject: [tcpm] Adopting draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv

From: Pasi Sarolahti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:11:02 +0100

Hi,

The other adoption call we did in the Atlanta meeting was about draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-05. In the room there was unanimous support for adopting this, but we did not discuss much about the intended status of the document. I understood the authors' current preference is to go for Proposed Standard, and this is what the draft header suggests. Any thoughts about this? Does anyone think Experimental would be more appropriate at this point (and on what basis)?

- Pasi

---

From: Yuchung Cheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 01:27:05 +0800

> The other adoption call we did in the Atlanta meeting was about draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv-05. In the room there was unanimous support for adopting this, but we did not discuss much about the inte…
According to RFC2026 PS:
"A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
   known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
   significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
   interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
   might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
   before it advances.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation."

Has the idea "pipeAck" and 5min idle-time been implemented and
evaluated in real systems/networks?

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