On 7/17/2015 9:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> I also don't see any need >>> for RFC3929 stuff here, nor do I think that is suited for cases >>> like this at all. >>> >> Hmm. I'd like to understand why you think it isn't suited for EXACTLY >> this case. >> > 3929 says "In most of these cases, there are two or > more competing proposals at approximately the same level of technical > maturity, deployment, and specification." > > I think that doesn't match this situation well where we have one > draft that's fairly fully specified with code and some limited > deployment (but that would likely change in the WG process) and > another that is really an outline, but an outline that can clearly > form a basis for achieving the same functionality if a bunch of > relatively obvious work is done in future. I see your point, but would include other context in comparing the two approaches - e.g., based on well-established mechanisms vs. not, not implemented but relatively clean interaction with TCP vs. not, which puts them on a much more equal footing (which is part of why the WG has not converged). Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
