Subject: [tcpm] intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 01:17:36 -0800

Hi folks,

We would like to get feedback for the intended status
of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn.
The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but we've seen
some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft during Singapore
meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check the consensus on it.

There are some on-going related discussions such as flag registration
policy, SCE, ECN++, etc, however, we believe the intended status
discussions is independent from them and can proceed it separately. (If you
have concerns on it, please share your opinion here)

We appreciate your feedback.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi on behalf of tcpm co-chairs.

---

From: Jonathan Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:44:59 +0200

> On 13 Dec, 2019, at 11:17 am, Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> We would like to get feedback for the intended status of draft-ietf-tcpm-accurate-ecn. 
> The current intended status of this draft is experimental, but we've seen some voices that PS is more preferable for the draft during Singapore meeting and on the ML. So, we would like to check the consensus on it.

I say it should stay as EXP for the time being.

 - Jonathan Morton