Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C5C12D0CE; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.338 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=tVA0KFos; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=t+c6oPrc Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VY5-iHnUGpQW; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9281C12D0B7; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.82.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (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; d=opendkim.org; 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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1471931507; x=1472017907; i=@elandsys.com; 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: <6.2.5.6.2.20160822210805.0a0616e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 21:11:16 -0700 To: "Black, David" , apps-discuss@ietf.org, Lars Eggert , Godred Fairhurst , Greg Shepherd From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160805084142.0bd419e8@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [tsvwg] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-16 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org 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. Regards, S. Moonesamy