Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.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 3292D21F886E for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ebBemCP8JhV6 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com (mail-oa0-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ADA21F8870 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j1so6199037oag.35 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=+uo6IGcWQltyr63dLsj9U/WU9mfHlaeVKRgoNuKEPgY=; b=UQN2VdA70vdDqJ3xvfbkg4CrzWHIfZG3+gixnPb+zPsPwDQDifRa5obiujLBbf/RRK 0rGT9uSAW5ByR0TSxX9jEixmLgaq0+nyUQGZPuikKzeSjaxYcGPTFNnoMTxv2WnxczYu rY7AoccF7PNQqtlHJcZd9abyog0t23hDk1GNHpVIF1qmhSb655+S+pAVkLRII21LQstE EK30qxVldqz2ChlmAwp8hnhssXbW8bAglf0LA6FqXpJksRUvKITk1Z+L18ePx0sfRrTC 4UWkdQ4Pqd5IEWvZLnSoNW3Liljoy/YQtXbkUg31kOB4GTr4iQUjIrMA8aHIJFumdcYp RNCg==
X-Received: by 10.60.12.69 with SMTP id w5mr2847440oeb.127.1361912059361; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.109.188.126] ([166.147.97.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ri1sm3413578obc.12.2013.02.26.12.54.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:18 -0800 (PST)
References: <CAKhHsXGCZCGOPxGuH2C1Pfo+eZLAk-AbG1SZ4bMAyNZGS1_41A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN7P8SF6ejLaBHJQCAj=tQoMHEEAgrp2okmRs1TwSOSxSg@mail.gmail.com> <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <CC3E55B9-87EB-462B-B548-D97ABE6FCC96@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:54:10 -0600
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 20:54:26 -0000

Great. Thanks for the responses. 

- Alan -



On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:37 PM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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