To: FoRK@xent.ics.uci.edu, email@example.com Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:47:22 -0700 From: Rohit Khare <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <email@example.com> Subject: PEP over TCP, or TCPPEP Aaron Falk wrote in an IETF TCP over Satellite BOF report: ... informal meeting was held with interested folks at the IETF to work out some details. There was general agreement that spoofing means different things to different people but that it is generally a pejorative term. To allow the group to focus on the technical issues rather than the emotional ones, I am suggesting that what we are talking about are proxies that enhance TCP performance. Therefore, I propose that we call this activity TCPPEP for, naturally, TCP Performance Enhancing Proxies. Eric Travis and I led the discussion and Eric will be posting a summary to the tcppep list. ... Welcome to the crowd, folks -- here's another PEP draft that may actually make it to experimental RFC status soon: "PEP - an Extension Mechanism for HTTP" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-http-pep-05.txt And yes,one can say there is PEPTCP as much as there is TCPPEP... ObWG comment: Per the Los Angeles consensus, I agree that there is value in putting the PEP design into the RFC library as a sign of its maturity review, and potential citation in future woprk. However, iut is clearly not standards track anymore, but nor should it go all the way to informational; there is a case to be made that Eric and Henrik's code and a wide variety of other "end-user" applications at W3C justify the Experimental banner. The main result of these experiences is "negotiation is hard -- so don't". Rather than complex transfer of intent or policy, the new Mandatory- scheme just says what to do; the PEP RFC should stand as a warning that "here lie dragons". Rohit Khare PS. Thanks to Lloyd Wood for pointing out this BOF report.