Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

OK. if there're no further opinions, I will do it. -- Yoshi On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:58 AM Martin Duke wrote: > Hi Stewart, > > I'm going to ship draft-16 to the IESG today. Any last concerns beyond the > stated differences from WG consensus? > > Yoshi, please update the shepherd writeup to

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Hi Stewart, I'm going to ship draft-16 to the IESG today. Any last concerns beyond the stated differences from WG consensus? Yoshi, please update the shepherd writeup to cover the flavor of this discussion. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:18 AM Stewart Bryant wrote: > Here is how we should proceed.

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

> We make as much progress as we can agree on which will clear some > of the issue below. > For any remaining issues for which you have wider consensus but > where we cannot agree, I modify my review and the IESG decides how > they wish to proceed. > I am prepared to be in the rough but I have a

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Here is how we should proceed. We make as much progress as we can agree on which will clear some of the issue below. For any remaining issues for which you have wider consensus but where we cannot agree, I modify my review and the IESG decides how they wish to proceed. I am prepared to be in

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Last comment first ... > We are getting there, but I would ask that you take the transport > hat off and look again from an infrastructure and packet transport > perspective. I don't view this as looking at it from a transport vs. infrastructure perspective. And, I am not disagreeing with your

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

> On 17 Jun 2020, at 18:20, Martin Duke wrote: > > Hi Stewart, > > If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus. > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke > wrote: > Stewart, > > do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Please give me until tomorrow and I will take a look.Life has been a bit busy here,StewartOn 17 Jun 2020, at 18:20, Martin Duke wrote:Hi Stewart,If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Hi Stewart, If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus. On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke wrote: > Stewart, > > do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your > concerns? > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman wrote: > >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Stewart, do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your concerns? On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman wrote: > > Hi Stewart, et.al.! > > I just submitted a new version of rto-consider. Please ask the > datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14. The

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Hi Stewart, et.al.! I just submitted a new version of rto-consider. Please ask the datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14. The highlights: - The diffs with the last rev are here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff=draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-15.txt - All small

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

> On 5 Jun 2020, at 17:43, Mark Allman wrote: > > > Hi Stewart! > > Thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the long RTT. I had a recent > deadline and am now trying to dig out. > >> Major issues: >> >> As far as I can see this text only applies to exchanges between >> applications and

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14

Hi Stewart! Thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the long RTT. I had a recent deadline and am now trying to dig out. > Major issues: > > As far as I can see this text only applies to exchanges between > applications and network support applications such as > DNS. I.e. this is targeted at layer