On Jan 24, 2013 3:42 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
On Jan 24, 2013, at 04:41, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
This is my last comment on the CRLF issue, which I just used as the
(for me) obvious example for what I was trying to say.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 02:20, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Oh, my. This is getting to be interesting. I had no direct
interaction with or insight into the ASA
Reviews of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-08 and
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08
Summary: These drafts are not ready for publication as RFCs.
First, some of the text in these documents shows signs of being old, and the
working group may have been staring at them so long that they've become
Please see my response to the last call message for
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term. That review covered this document and
that one at the same time.
RjS
On 1/16/13 3:47 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG
(bmwg) to consider the following
This is a useful and well-written document and I support its publication. I
have a few comments which I would be glad if they were addressed:
1. I believe that the document must include reference to TRILL OAM, referencing
draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04 (which is close to approval) and including a
--On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 16:31 -0500 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't
really change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being changed to
include those ICMP validation
On Jan 24, 2013, at 04:41, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by
Magnus,
In behalf of the draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd authors I publicly address
the comments in your IETF LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-initcwnd-06.
In regards to interactions between IW and real time traffic (your
points 12 below and echoed in Robert Spark's DISCUSS):
By design TCP creates queues
Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
I think in protocol evolution (as well as computer system evolution
in general) we are missing triggers to get rid of vestigial
features.
That's quite true. Let us start by rationalizing the spelling and
punctuation of
Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297 from that sentence
entirely.
Allison
On Jan 24, 2013 7:19 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont
Thanks - I wasn't positive about the second one. Glad to have it
resolved quickly.
Joe
On 1/24/2013 5:57 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297
Total of 97 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 25 00:53:03 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
1.03% |1 | 25.97% | 295206 | bcla...@cisco.com
5.15% |5 | 4.19% |47613 |
The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'Algorithm Agility Procedure for RPKI.'
draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-11.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multi-party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)'
(draft-ietf-simple-chat-18.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the SIP for Instant Messaging and
Presence Leveraging Extensions Working Group.
The IESG
18 matches
Mail list logo
