Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:38:52 +0200

Hi,

attached is a diff between -06 and my current working copy, to let  
the WG know about the changes I've made so far to address WG last  
call comments.

There were some suggestions discussed in response to Joe's and  
Alfred's comments that I haven't made, because the rest of the WG was  
silent, which I interpreted as lack of consensus for the change.  
Speak up if you disagree with this resolution.

Lars

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:30:04 -0800

Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> attached is a diff between -06 and my current working copy, to let the
> WG know about the changes I've made so far to address WG last call
> comments.
> 
> There were some suggestions discussed in response to Joe's and Alfred's
> comments that I haven't made, because the rest of the WG was silent,
> which I interpreted as lack of consensus for the change. Speak up if you
> disagree with this resolution.

I have spoken before on this point in general. Apathy is not consensus.

Apathy can be a reason to not include a change, but that's the reason.
Not consensus.

Joe

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 19:20:34 +0200

On 2007-11-5, at 17:30, ext Joe Touch wrote:
>> Alfred's

My understanding is that we have *had* consensus on what the document  
currently says about the two points in question (whether to include  
the UTO in both the SYN and the first non-SYN, and whether UTO is  
supposed to be transmitted reliably) since these points were  
discussed a few revisions back.

I'm not opposed to making changes if the consensus has changed. But I  
have difficulties determining whether this is the case. I'd  
appreciate some additional WG comments on this.

Lars

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:49:49 -0800

> Apathy can be a reason to not include a change, but that's the reason.

Apathy and consensus are not point states.

This document has a lengthy (perhaps too lengthy) history of largely
supportive comment.  The IETF doesn't require people to re-defend
consensus on each iteration.

I haven't gone back to re-read the exchanges on this particular aspect
of the doc and I will.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:30:00 -0800

> I haven't gone back to re-read the exchanges on this particular aspect

I don't know if the points Lars is discussing above have been raised
before; he indicated only that there was no discussion by the WG. If
they have been raised before, I agree with your statement about not
re-defending consensus.

If these are new, however, I would hope we would have some discusion to
determine how to proceed. I'll wait for the summary of points though -
which could include that context (i.e., consensus'd before or not)...

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:51:19 -0800

PS - overall, the updates below look good (thanks).

Joe

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:14:12 -0000

I think the document as stands (in your latest diffed version) seems fine. (I'm not an expert on SYN cookies though...)
 
Toby

________________________________

From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 05/11/2007 17:20
To: ext Joe Touch
Cc: ext Alfred HÎnes; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:22:40 +0200

Hi,

FYI, I'll shortly submit my working copy as -07.

Thanks to the new submission system, it will be a simple thing to  
push out an -08 revision before the cutoff, if the WG would like to  
see further changes.

Lars