IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F20321F8A53 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xl1zaCzTWKNl for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B226421F8A51 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361911048; x=1363120648; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eidEeCVWrXcbmK/Ie+dZOlgOP79nBD9Odmg8d7ySj8c=; b=iHsdKOUDdk0OrCcHA67lHckpHQTqv5NzCNfsHig62ptgt7gUeA5yCpov D/nvqyWew4Y2yhG4IpbwNzUQVuoFm6yMbr4dV9MQFNGySJYYmY8KBXKqp is/ZY7FSLmpgXEJIVDZ5JHJqJBlbJ4tIPIzdPoQ6W14G03tDGMeXDiZ7v w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAO8bLVGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFwXV/FnOCHwEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEEAQEBChQJByEGCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId5Aw4BDLAAhioNiVQEjDyCJyYLBwaCWWEDlGONLoUXgwiCJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,743,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181463644"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2013 20:37:28 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1QKbSO6023183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.144]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:37:28 -0600
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] UDP Only
Thread-Index: AQHOEFQnnTWCtsUkb0atd8yQ3N8HWJiIIg4AgAR+0sA=
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:27 +0000
Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
References: <CAKhHsXGCZCGOPxGuH2C1Pfo+eZLAk-AbG1SZ4bMAyNZGS1_41A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN7P8SF6ejLaBHJQCAj=tQoMHEEAgrp2okmRs1TwSOSxSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN7P8SF6ejLaBHJQCAj=tQoMHEEAgrp2okmRs1TwSOSxSg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [171.68.20.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bfcpbis>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:29 -0000

As an individual, my take on this is the same as Mary's. Section 6 of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-08 specifies both TCP and UDP as available transport protocols, and it says either may be used depending on the environment.

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:56 AM
> To: Alan Johnston
> Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only
> 
> Since no one else has responded, my understanding is that one could be
> considered compliant if they support UDP only.
> 
> Mary.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alan Johnston
> <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testing
> > BFCP over UDP and TCP.
> >
> > Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be
> compliant?  Or
> > do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP?
> >
> > - Alan -
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bfcpbis mailing list
> > bfcpbis@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email