Hi, and with my AD hat on, I would like to see this document progress MUCH faster than the UDP-encaps document did. If possible, WGLC before Beijing. Lars On 2010-9-8, at 17:24, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > Based on the feedback, there seems to be pretty good support for doing > this draft as a DCCP working group item, and this seems a straight- > forward improvement to TFRC. Therefore, authors, please submit the > next version as a DCCP working group draft, with the draft name set > accordingly. The rest of us should read and send comments on the > draft, to help the authors make timely progress getting this forward. > > Thanks! > > - Pasi & Tom > > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > >> Ok, so a couple of questions: >> >> Gerrit, Gorry: if there is support to take this forward, how close >> to ready would you think we are -- are there open issues? Would it >> be realistic to think about WGLC in about few months of time? With >> quick reading I couldn't identify any contentious issues in the >> draft, and I think it points out a relevant problem in TFRC that >> needs to be addressed. >> >> Group: would you support this to become a DCCP working group item >> for a proposed standard RFC? I will assume that people who respond >> "Yes" are committing to participate in reviewing this and the >> subsequent versions of the draft. >> >> - Pasi >> >> >> On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >> >>> Dear DCCP'ers. >>> >>> Gerrit has been working on improving the CCID-3 implementation in >>> Linux, and this has raised the question of whether we can now >>> progress the 'sender sends RTT estimate' option that was originally >>> specified (and recommended) in RFC 5348 and which was submitted >>> asdraft-renker-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-00.txt, with accompanying >>> slides for IETF-72 at: >>> >>> https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/dccp-3.pdf >>> >>> We therefore have uploaded >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-renker-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-01.txt >>> >>> We'd like the WG to consider this minor, but important update as a >>> suitable piece of work for standardisation - We believe it >>> addresses several practical issues with the current DCCP CCID3/4 >>> approach. >>> >>> Please read and send comments to the DCCP list. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Gorry & Gerrit >> >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
