Subject: [tcpm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 06:17:43 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents
	Author(s)       : Martin Duke
                          Robert Braden
                          Wesley M. Eddy
                          Ethan Blanton
                          Alexander Zimmermann
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-00.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2013-08-09

Abstract:
   This document contains a "roadmap" to the Requests for Comments (RFC)
   documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol
   (TCP).  This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents
   defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the
   RFC series.  This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP
   implementers and other parties who desire information contained in
   the TCP-related RFCs.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-rfc4614bis-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Zimmermann, Alexander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 13:57:48 +0000

Hi WG,

in the 00-Version I did not incorporate all feedback from Yuchung
since I want to have more feedback from the list. Open points
are:

* Where we put RFC5482 (UTO)? I tend to create a new subsection
  in section 3 "TCP Timeouts", but leave the doc in sec 3

* Restructuring of subsec 3.2 and 3.3.
	- 3.2: Congestion Control Extensions: RFC3465, RFC6633, RFC3168
	- 3.3: Loss Recovery Extensions: RFC2018 ,RFC6675, RFC3042, RFC6582
	- Move RFC2883 (DSACK to) 3.3

  I'm open to this. However, we decide to do this, we may do the
  same with 4.1, which means to spit the sec into 2 subsecs

* Should we move Eifel Dection (RFC3522) to sec 3.3? I do not see a
  strong reason for doing this (see my answer to Yuchung)

* Are we happy with the new IANA section?

Alex

Am 09.08.2013 um 15:17 schrieb [email-masked]:

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