Re: [BEHAVE] draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt [was RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-behave-turn-tcp-02.txt]

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

Dan Wing wrote:
>> One missing open issue is multiple connections vs shared connection
>> (ala SSH).  As far as I can read in the minutes of the Minneapolis
>> meeting and the subsequent discussions in the mailing-list, nothing
>> was decided.
> 
> For everyone else's reference, here are pointers to the mailing list
> discussion of your proposal, 
> draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-00.txt:
> 
> your announcement of the I-D:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04938.html
> 
> Rémi Denis-Courmont's comments:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04942.html
> 
> Simon Perreault's comments:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04939.html
> 
> your followup:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg04952.html
> where you wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > Some of your arguments are absolutely true (HOLB), some are 
>  > debatable, and the others I have to think about them.
>  >
>  > But there is also some advantages to the single connection 
>  > solution, for example establishing a new peer TCP connection is 
>  > faster.  Please also have a look to section 3.3.2 in the excellent 
>  > draft-iab-ip-model-evolution.
>  >
> 
> Please followup to Remi's comments in this thread.
> 

I submitted a new version of the turn-tcp-variant draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-01.txt

I put Remi's arguments inside the document as reasons not to adopt
this variant in TURN TCP.  I also added arguments in favors of
adopting it :-)

Comments are welcome.

Thanks.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [e-mail]
Work: [e-mail]