Subject: RE: [tcpm] TCP consolidation doc

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:31:38 +0200

Hi Lloyd & others,

> > I find myself really wondering what a longer document would buy us.
> > It'd be damn hard to write and agree on, I bet.
> 
> Note the history of aborted/unpublished TCP documents. RFC1323bis, the
> whole SACK thing. A long document is doomed before you start. Adding
> new/experimental stuff dooms you too.
> 
> What you really want is a very short RFC relying heavily on the
> normative mechanism, commenting on the current standards-track RFCs as
> normative references, saying what is considered important to
> implement, what is worthwhile implementing, possibly known
> implementation gotchas, etc. This RFC would go BCP, and be updated by
> subsequent BCP docs replacing it. You'd expct a yearly or two-yearly
> commentary on the state of the art of TCP, really.
> 
> Given the existing IETF document focus on TCP and the narrow focus of
> this doc on that, it's the one instance where normative references in
> a BCP doc actually make sense.

Because I'm a lazy coder, I always like to look for prior work before
starting something.  On this topic, I'd like to note a draft that I have
been editor on, and wonder if a similar approach to TCP would be one
possible way to tackle this topic. See:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-08.txt

br,
John

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