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]>]

Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 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.
> 

The Kindle version:

http://ietf.implementers.org/draft-petithuguenin-turn-tcp-variant-01.mobi


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