Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 14 December 2011 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 401BD21F8BAD; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZYIFYPDVaKcU; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAD321F8AF7; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000::67]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82E5520E2E; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4EE8C736.4030900@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:38 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
References: <4EE79606.30704@cisco.com> <4EE8BF1F.9080901@viagenie.ca> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B34E533@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B34E533@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:57:52 -0000

On 2011-12-14 10:54, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Simon Perreault wrote:
>>>    * Req1: Whither SCTP?  At the very least someone should say something
>> about why
>>>      SCTP is NOT on the list.
>>
>> There are BEHAVE RFCs we can cite regarding NAT behaviour for TCP, UDP,
>> and ICMP.
>> There is none for SCTP. If there was one we could debate this. But right now
>> it's just impossible to say "support SCTP" without saying how this is done.
>
> I think Eliot was suggesting something like saying
> "Note that SCTP is not in this list because there is no RFC at this time on
> NAT behavior for SCTP."

Got it, thanks.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca