Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis

Works for me. I originally thought we might also address BFCP messages that  exceeded the 16 bit payload length field, and I structured the section accordingly. We decided to not tackle that, but the section structure remained anyway. I like your proposal.
As part of the reorganization, it may be worthwhile to change the text for what is  currently section 6.3 from:

   Large messages become a concern when using BFCP if the overall size
   of a single BFCP message exceeds that representable within the 16-bit
   Payload Length field of the COMMON-HEADER.  When using UDP, there is
   the added concern that a single BFCP message can be fragmented at the
   IP layer if its overall size exceeds the MTU threshold of the
   network.

To 

   The size of a BFCP message is limited by the 16-bit Payload Length field of the 
   COMMON-HEADER.  When using UDP, a single BFCP message may be fragmented 
   at the IP layer if its overall size exceeds the MTU threshold of the network.

After this, the information in what is currently section 6.3.1 can clearly be targeted at UDP only.

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:53 AM
> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> Cc: Horvath, Ernst; bfcpbis@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
> 
> Actually, my proposal would be to move both the subsections under 6.2
> "Unreliable Transport", since the "NAT Traversal" and "Large
> Message..."/"Fragmentation Handling" is written in the UDP/BFCP context.
> 
> I also propose to collapse the section "Large Message..." and its
> subsection "Fragmentation Handling" into one, since the main thing here
> is to describe the fragmentation handling solution.
> 
> OK?
> 
> -- Tom
> 
> On 10/08/2012 08:09 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> > (as an individual)
> >
> > Hi Horvath,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree that NAT traversal should not be
> a subsection of Large message considerations; however, I think it would be
> better to relocate it to section 6.2.3 as a part of Section 6.2 "Unreliable
> Transport".
> >
> >       6.2.  Unreliable Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >         6.2.1.  Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >         6.2.2.  ICMP Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >         6.2.3.  NAT Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >       6.3.  Large Message Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >         6.3.1.  Fragmentation Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Charles
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Horvath, Ernst [mailto:ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:29 AM
> >> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); bfcpbis@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently 6.3.2 "NAT Traversal" is a subsection of 6.3 "Large Message
> >> Considerations". Is this really the intention, or should NAT Traversal
> better
> >> be renumbered as section 6.4?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ernst
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org
> >>> [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> >>> Sent: Samstag, 22. September 2012 02:36
> >>> To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
> >>>
> >>> Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for
> >>> comments. Please review the draft and submit your comments by
> >>> the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline (not 2011 as erroneously typed
> >>> previously)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Charles (as co-chair)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> >>>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM
> >>>> To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
> >>>>
> >>>> (As WG co-chair)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is to announce a working group last call for
> >>>>
> >>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-
> >>>
> >>>> rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)".
> >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/
> >>>>
> >>>> This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582.
> >>>> Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3
> >>>>
> >>> weeks) with any
> >>>
> >>>> comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g.
> >>>>
> >>> technical issue vs.
> >>>
> >>>> editorial), and also  to provide any replacement text you
> >>>>
> >>> feel is necessary.
> >>>
> >>>> If you review the document and have no comments, please
> >>>>
> >>> tell the chairs
> >>>
> >>>> that you have reviewed it. This is always useful
> >>>>
> >>> information in assessing the
> >>>
> >>>> degree of WG review and consensus behind the document.
> >>>> Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will
> >>>>
> >>> be run in parallel.
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Charles
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >