Re: [bfcpbis] Comments on Appendix B of RFC 4582bis
Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com> Mon, 16 April 2012 11:49 UTC
Return-Path: <tomkrist@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 7F31D21F86A4 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 fsSVTbGXTJyn for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971B821F8692 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tomkrist@cisco.com; l=1984; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334576964; x=1335786564; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ORtofJH+1ttiMiTG6bT/xodTnVQqkPdpyqFbD1OI+vY=; b=PWfpCitD25daa3KtJnJipWha1douviFt8s4PrzEEcBoqxCGAgYUkZDjV zhxNqCmKX5HgAqZ2eXhtDqhnkcIdq6RM8QFBRGEpglQtihcEmsLjVe9TY qLoCVu7WrIVPiQ4XVhDuekbVG4qvTeeI7AxNYIiNNfSYwWqi7mxyWYktq A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4FAMgGjE+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABEgxywGoEHggkBAQEEAQEBDwElNgoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBHodsC5knnyKLN4JugyQElW2BEYRhiFqBaYJpgVo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,427,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="70960523"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2012 11:49:23 +0000
Received: from [10.55.81.41] (dhcp-10-55-81-41.cisco.com [10.55.81.41]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3GBnN3N024532 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:49:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4F8C0743.8000900@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:49:23 +0200
From: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
References: <4F8C04C4.40607@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F8C04C4.40607@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Comments on Appendix B of RFC 4582bis
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:49:25 -0000
Thanks for this input and guidance. I'll do my very best to do the suggested modifications to the existing text. Thanks also for digging up the old mail threads with comments on the RFC 4582 text. -- Tom On 04/16/2012 01:38 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi, > > during our last face-to-face meeting, I agreed to have a look at > Appendix B of the bis draft: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-02#appendix-B > > I think it is a good idea to have that type of appendix because when > people (e.g., the IESG) review the draft, the first question we will get > is why have we defined an application-layer UDP-based mechanism instead > of reusing an off-the-self transport mechanism... and that is indeed a > good and very natural question. > > The Motivation section is good. It could stress a bit more that BFCP > over UDP was already out there in real deployments and that specifying a > common way to exchange BFCP messages where TCP was not appropriate was > needed in order to avoid the existence of many different ways to do that > in the market. In that way, the text will flow well into the next > section (alternatives considered). > > I would move the description of the UDP-based approach in the draft from > the introduction (B.1) to the Alternative Considered Section as *the* > alternative that was finally chosen. Also, that section needs to explain > that we asked the transport area for ways to tunnel TCP over UDP but > that, at that point, there was no consensus on how to do that. > > Another alternative that should be described in the Appendix is the SCTP > over UDP approach ala RTCWeb. The text should say that such an approach > was not mature enough (not even fully specified) at that point, > unfortunately. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis >
- [bfcpbis] Comments on Appendix B of RFC 4582bis Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] Comments on Appendix B of RFC 4582b… Tom Kristensen