On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected]> wrote:
> El 01/08/14 21:07, ianG escribió: > > On 1/08/2014 16:24 pm, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> >>> El 01/08/14 14:17, ianG escribió: Marcelo wrote: >>> >>>> As we discussed in the meeting, we should try to make some design >>>>> decisions for TCPINC. >>>>> One of them is whether to protect or not the TCP header. >>>>> >>>> is clearly, not to decide. The charter should leave the level of TCP >>>> header protection open. May the best proposal win. >>>> >>>> No. >>> We are chartered to define one and only one standard for this. >>> We would be doing a poor service to the community if we can decide and >>> leave someone else the burden to figure out which is the approach to use. >>> So the tcpinc wg should define one specification for this, not many. >>> >> >> I agree. May the best proposal win: choose the one that best serves >> the overall needs of competing proposals. >> >> It's already clear from the proposals that there will be differing >> approaches and capabilities. Set a deadline, pick one. >> > > Right, this is the plan. > The deadline we are aiming for to pick a proposal is november > I do think it is helpful to discuss the requirements the proposals are aiming to hit, however. That way people can adjust their proposals to meet the relevant needs. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
