Subject: Content for deprecating source-quench

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:32:40 +0100

Hi Fernando,

Pls feel free to use any of this content that will help, from a 
posting of mine to the TERNLI list in 2006:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ternli/current/msg00036.html>

Please ack Jon Crowcroft, who gave me a lot of the reasons.

Bob

PS. I guess you might be able to tell I'm a researcher, when an email 
cites 16 references :)

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:26:54 -0300

Hi, Bob,

Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments inline...

On 31/03/2011 04:32 a.m., Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Pls feel free to use any of this content that will help, from a posting
> of mine to the TERNLI list in 2006:

This was indeed very interesting and useful information.

Now, considering possible ways forward with this: Do you think it would
be best to:
* include a reference (in Section 2) to your post "for further
information on why ICMP SQ have become deprecated"?, or,
* that we should enhance the current Section 2 and incorporate at least
part of the contents of your e-mail?, or,
* that we should incorporate the contents of your e-mail into a Appendix?

What do you (and others) think?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:03:55 +0200

TSVWG today talked about the need for more context on the issues that 
motivate obsoleting source quench. My suggestion would be to use this as 
an input to section 2, rather than including a reference or placing the 
text directly into the document.

I expect more comments will are also emerge from the discussion at the 
Mic today.

Gorry

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:47:36 +0100

Fernando,

Personally I think, if an RFC is going to deprecate something, it 
needs to say why. Referencing an email archive is a bad idea.

This will make more work, but writing standards isn't meant to be easy.

I have no preference between body & appendix - your doc. But it's not 
as if the doc is too long so far.

Bob

PS. Anantha cc'd as he's having tsvwg list problems.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:42:44 -0300

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Personally I think, if an RFC is going to deprecate something, it needs to
> say why.

I fully agree. The current doc is what it is because at the time the
idea of formally deprecating ICMP SQ originated, folks argued that a
kinda a single page document would do. That's it. But I do agree with
your view.

> Referencing an email archive is a bad idea.

Yes. I just asked which option would make you happier. :-) Unless
somebody yells, I'll incorporate this in the current Section 2 of the
I-D.

Thanks!
Fernando