Re: [apps-discuss] [tsvwg] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-16

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 23 August 2016 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C5C12D0CE; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.338
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=tVA0KFos; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=t+c6oPrc
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VY5-iHnUGpQW; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9281C12D0B7; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7N5pXIh015289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1471931507; x=1472017907; bh=U8LMB3hdR9J9QcH2Qj1fayOxJ7wVeKcZhnxaW3LlnJY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tVA0KFosz+eh3WdGneUYZt6gM9H4vRv+st3EVDIr42ldimLHKsDg4pkzikHkByVdQ scAG2BnedYleUPhMKOyJyYtD1BrQv1oWdaco3wB3+5CRYPG7Mqjuv4F6e4IfX7tBKq R2bZdl2YcLf4psKAvLjSF+b5v6xEemF+PjDgKW+w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1471931507; x=1472017907;; bh=U8LMB3hdR9J9QcH2Qj1fayOxJ7wVeKcZhnxaW3LlnJY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=t+c6oPrcuB3MvGSByExbrjC6ZgHa/IOu+vSnPc5Q9quwMLpBNw7sa6WM2fB+y2ns5 qRIZ7v2fschLvgieOmwMnKWHJQPHlLGv7U6GTOW+1SrS3c7+O55k9Zv/f15ovO44nZ F5lVwZzWSPAzA74jF9R+BaZloWJ1lTkh0T5GsDRM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 21:11:16 -0700
To: "Black, David" <>,, Lars Eggert <>, Godred Fairhurst <>, Greg Shepherd <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F65D270@MX307CL04.corp.em>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [tsvwg] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-16
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:52:04 -0000

Hi David,
At 20:59 22-08-2016, Black, David wrote:
>I guess that begs the definition of "intended for the Internet" - if such an
>application has complete knowledge of the network path or paths involved
>it could know that there is provisioned QoS.  That's a specialized case, but
>it is possible.

Thanks for responding to the review.  I consider the review as addressed.

S. Moonesamy