Skip to main content

SACK-IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
RFC 7053

Yes

(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-11)
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

Curiously, after reading it I cam to enter this position and found two other ADs had already made the point I wanted to make. Clearly, if the receiver is a legacy implementation, it will ignore the I bit, and perhaps this is the point. Since this document updates 4960, the behaviour on receipt of the I bit becomes normative, so making the behaviour somewhat optional (via SHOULD) seems a good way to get off the hook.

However, the wording in section 5.2 does leave this all a bit ambiguous.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-10)
Section 5.2 invites the question: Why shouldn't the receiver delay and, more importantly, under what circumstances is it reasonable for the receiver to delay and when is it not reasonable? Might be handy to give some advice here.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-11)
I had the same reaction to Pete.  Under what circumstances would the receiver choose to delay (i.e., not obey the SHOULD)?  If none exist, then it should be a MUST.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()