> More importantly, I don't want to keep re-litigating this point. If you'd > formed working group consensus around getting an ExID, we would have switched > to RFC6994. At this point, we're on the home > stretch for an RFC and have a bunch of deployed code out there, so our > efforts are better spent finishing the existing document.
As co-chair of TCPM: Many thanks for letting me know that a proposed standard RFC published by the TCPM working group, which represents IETF consensus, is not considered appropriate in this community. I believe this decision should be recorded in the shepherd write-up for the TCP-ENO document, so that it can be discussed during IETF last call. As individual contributor: I have not asked for changes in running code. But in my understanding new experiments with TCP-ENO could use RFC 6994 and would thus follow the process that the IETF offers for such experiments. Given that the TCP-ENO specification has changed over time I would assume that new experiments fully complying to the TCP-ENO specification would require other code changes as well and TCP-ENO implementations could thus move to RFC 6994 for further experimentation. The value of experimentation with running code is well-known and RFC 6994 has successfully be used in such cases. Michael _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
