IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 18:09 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 0257921F87C5 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:09:26 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bYeoQNcE4urn for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F89221F87C3 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3129; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349719765; x=1350929365; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iuLyb8hgRJzTP5bBIfkHXLCLweCL8mt9hgGjUhPPmu0=; b=XgG85ny7MCBfhkq6hgPsoNFHJys/j6k/XWJUvij3ILzAQkB2FhbW7QsM umpo7l6U/22+g/QUM/UqyiVmEBE/PAb+Jre8o3UGOivGARWgebLC6k25j VILm74sbeYEk7GpNFU8bRf8VJLcyWnEgDuzLT4pEmtKK91w8bh1a3TvBL E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJ8Wc1CtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFvy+BCIIgAQEBBAEBAQ8BCh00FwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAQEEARIIGodiAQuaJp9qi0+FMGADlwCNMIFpgm2CFw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,555,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="129231793"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2012 18:09:14 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q98I9DKd018223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 18:09:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.25]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:09:13 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: "Horvath, Ernst" <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
Thread-Index: Ac2NAeUBlWZWMlJIRpyXKbtffhLaTQLV4YwwAKtpOOACngDJ0A==
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:09:12 +0000
Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280DE72A@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> <C2BCA7974025BD459349BED0D06E48BB01286F70@MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <C2BCA7974025BD459349BED0D06E48BB01286F70@MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [171.68.20.23]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19252.004
x-tm-as-result: No--47.238300-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
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, 08 Oct 2012 18:09:26 -0000

(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
> >

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status