Subject: Re: [tcpm] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-08.txt

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:07:45 +0200

On 2008-12-3, at 10:47, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>> (FYI, the draft originally aimed at Std. Track, and discussed other
>>> alternative  approaches for dealing with the problem of long delays
>>> between connection establishment attempts. Then we changed the draft
>>> category to "Informational", to simply document this behavior. At
>>> that point, the discussion of parallel connections and other
>>> approaches was dropped).
>>
>> I don't think just ignoring this problem is acceptable, but a  
>> reference
>> to a discussion of what can be done about it in that RFC or some  
>> other
>> document should suffice.
>
> I have produced a separate PDF document with such a discussion, and
> have provided a pointer to it in the Introduction. Please let me know
> if you think this addresses the issue you raised.
>
> WG: Is this okay with the working group, or is any other approach
> preferred rather than the one I hve taken to adderss David's comments?

Quick follow-up: I have suggested to Fernando the alternative of  
including a short section of text on just this issue in the document  
itself, instead of referencing a PDF that includes a lot of other test  
(the PDF is basically what used to be appendix A, which was removed  
based on WG feedback). But that is also not aligned with prior WG  
consensus, since it would move some text back that we had removed.

Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus  
had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement on  
whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point  
to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the  
rough side of the consensus.

Feedback, please?

Lars

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

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:28:59 -0300

>rough side of the consensus.

FWIW, my personal take is that adding a reference to that PDF can 
address David's comments without having to add text back to the I-D.

Kind regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:09:56 -0600

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of Fernando Gont
>Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:29 AM
>

My personal opinion is that this is going to be published as an
RFC, and if all we need is a paragraph extracted from the other
document to describe the issue, then we should do that rather
than add a citation (dependency).  This keeps the RFC self-contained,
and removes the issue of people not being able to find the
other document 20 years from now, or misunderstanding the context
of that document as some kind of approved supplement to the RFC.

Just my < $0.02 :).

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:02:35 +0200

I think we need others to speak up, so we can come to consensus on  
what to do here.

Lars

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:01:00 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Lars Eggert wrote:
> I think we need others to speak up, so we can come to consensus on what to do 
> here.

As requested: I think the document is fine just as it is.  This has 
been going on far too long already and I just wish it was done.

I could also live with re-adding some material, but because that would 
result in another 6+ months of arguments with the text etc I don't 
look forward to that option.

I wish someone would write another I-D on implementation and 
deployment experiences with parallel TCP establishment approaches 
(maybe someone from Apple could help here).  But I don't think this is 
something that should be tied to the fate of this draft.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:31:05 -0300

At 02:01 a.m. 11/12/2008, Pekka Savola wrote:

>I could also live with re-adding some material, but because that 
>would result in another 6+ months of arguments with the text etc I 
>don't look forward to that option.

FWIW, I fully agree with Pekka.

>(maybe someone from Apple could help here).  But I don't think this 
>is something that should be tied to the fate of this draft.

I fully agree with Pekka in this respect, too.

FWIW, I volunteer to work a bit more on the "parallel connections" 
stuff, and getting an I-D published on this (and getting whoever has 
implementation/deployment experience in this involved). But as Pekka 
said, I don't think the soft errors draft should be tied to any of 
this "parallel connections" stuff.

Thanks,

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:19:39 +0200

Hi,

OK, let's move this document forward as-is.

Thanks,
Lars