On 6/5/2011 8:18 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
Michael, I am sometimes confused with the thinking of *some* TCPM work group members esp., for such simple drafts(harmless drafts). Now, what if it is a standards track document, would it be harmful to the internet? Or if it is informational it would be considered less harmful ? I simply don't get the point. At this point I wanted to mention that we have really removed a lot of contents like API guidance for implemenmters etc., from this draft. The draft as it stands now is purely a clarification of RFC 1122's persist behavior which was the original intent for which there was a reasonable consensus. The WG members need to explain clearly why they are nervous about making it a standards track, FWIW, lets take the urgent pointer clarification RFC which was recently issued (RFC 6093), that is a standards track document. It simply clarifies the intentions and usage of urgent pointer, and it is harmless. This document is very similar to that, IMO.
This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol. I don't agree with attempting any comparison with RFC 6093. That RFC changed the specification of the urgent pointer, whereas this draft does not change the TCP specification one iota. It's hard to see how Standards Track is appropriate for this draft. I agree with Michael that "MUST" versus "must" should make little difference to a reader; they'll get the point. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
