Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC 5018 mechanisms
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 08:31 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 D6A0A21F8444 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 W1lQenTMQ7I9 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E324F21F8469 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:30:57 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f936d0000018b3-66-50a205409d05
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6B.EF.06323.04502A05; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:30:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.36.86] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:30:56 +0100
Message-ID: <50A2053F.1050708@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30:55 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>
References: <50A2042A.90805@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A2042A.90805@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja4D66IAg4Zzqhb/1h1lsrhy5Beb A5PHlN8bWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWxduYT9oJ1bBV7P71ibWD8wtLFyMkhIWAi sX75AmYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAicZJV5/+8UO4axmlLg85x0bSBWvgLbE5CevwLpZBFQlpu/9 wAhiswlYSGy5dR8sLioQJXFo40F2iHpBiZMzn4DFRQTUJfr2fgeLMwsoSlzp6gWLCwvYS9yZ 0gwWFxJQk7jS0MEEYnMC1b/tX8gGcZ2kxNv3r5ghevUkplxtYYSw5SW2v53DDNGrLbH8WQvL BEahWUhWz0LSMgtJywJG5lWM7LmJmTnp5eabGIHBenDLb4MdjJvuix1ilOZgURLn1VPd7y8k kJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBcSnf7Tjjo7E/zWbMC9tU9jdsUo+ZW+XOjxGec7X2 uZkLvdu8TDU8dMc7Q2tHv/diMwu+OgTLF6xYnWHmFfW+ptmU83uk9plWMWkT4SPFS5cbJS/p 0VN9VT/fpWjvwYDw75YaGsmRXjybHjpNbH3C9+BMXKCw0ZyPP5S+/j5zgl94B0eZYNosJZbi jERDLeai4kQA2sVMAiQCAAA=
Cc: BFCPbis WG <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC 5018 mechanisms
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, 13 Nov 2012 08:31:04 -0000
Hi Tom, yes, per my original comments, I believe the spec needs to include a discussion about what happens when the mechanism in RFC 5018 is used. Thanks, Gonzalo On 13/11/2012 10:26 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote: > An issue that needs further work, if a discussion of RFC 5018 usage is > needed of course. > > Gonzalo: >> Section 6 says: >> >> "(e.g., using an SDP offer/answer exchange [7])" >> >> We should also add a reference to RFC 5018. Additionally, the document >> could discuss at some point what happens when the mechanism in RFC >> 5018 is used. > > Tom: > | Reference to RFC 5018 added in upcoming version. > | Text discussing impact of using the RFC 5018 mechanism will be done > | and added as a paragraph of Section 6.1. Reliable Transport I'd imagine. > > -- Tom
- [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC 5018… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC … Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #2: Discuss usage of RFC … Charles Eckel (eckelcu)