IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] 🔔 Confirmation call: CoAP over TCP/TLS #396: Revert L1 selection, select L3

Simon Lemay <simon.lemay@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.lemay@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0333A12D6AE for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSNriewW1fm9 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D2312D683 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f105so54425529qge.2 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lFURsecjaghYhBgErYxsg7hsadNNevwBe9v6dbTDYCQ=; b=m2XSPDe5fBTHFPsJ9l92b3dWbxoMY6kqNEPsExw1co7QzDGh2xWCsHkA9Js/IeArAv 4n77wz+dguTtqj3VYdf6KnnnASIKnenvUKVUrI7W935sEt8f02cL6GwfRn/6jQvtbE3m zfuxfoQVpLYrLZdTz6bURnl+mGF2QNlSqrohIHKX6xsgpF9Szh4SqPBnofM9El9X7NsH CGCtY+NKwKOkMeUuOVMQEgu43i0rZ5maebfG90fBXGB2CW6zReMVkOlN53BjI21n0NBh QrBnvXacsqfrrpXQ34SnhOJxfqlRePFWIPIeqCCe6Qy9Yl7p1+cXZ6OwuK+8lTH/OysG Q6IA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lFURsecjaghYhBgErYxsg7hsadNNevwBe9v6dbTDYCQ=; b=jb6USlkXAYVUWrPAscFq0oKVaXl+njTWfR3Wj23IhtPkcihKZfCx4xBmdU6Hwc6aWh cPjZzVIssdcRj8MbNh6geErfQ5FZhWZwEGO3gIrOcvboIu2ibREIisgAsIvtBntru3wg x0B32p3+AfVyVe3qh1Pq/sEBvwNTC4/CnSuJ2Kgd/oZioUuJR69hCl6+JzWbDL6tzRd5 YPGXaNbcKTAw3Lt874zZtD8lBCY2LDoCYdm5aEY0gqeKK0+/wlJxQYZPfNxFIMU/T6EA W0ZkIwt0KZwd/rNNCGbF4fwPN/WSDiuFV9dE42vF7x3EVFidy4YMLrulKg2TgN3ptKqf RPug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVHHUQNW9WGr8vFyxHIr3Lsrz2g8fDQ1AvkR6CXjntpsOKHNh66MSPNHtXXO1ZlHEuNisaVwoY/bfQsAw==
X-Received: by 10.140.90.106 with SMTP id w97mr14956397qgd.14.1460590206350; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <57054B35.50700@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <57054B35.50700@tzi.org>
From: Simon Lemay <simon.lemay@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:29:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CALfOQQ7un-8qAo7h9zZoaMSThn_qSB+2vX8LM-arFSLL7sLv3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c11a24697c2305306628c3"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/Vc986rlUe6OudybcueHHcTsjPC8>
Subject: Re: [core] 🔔 Confirmation call: CoAP over TCP/TLS #396: Revert L1 selection, select L3
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:30:09 -0000

Hi all,

Sorry for missing the meeting, but I had a few questions concerning the
decision, not that I am not necessarily oppose to the change, but I does
come as a surprise.

I know one of the main concern of L3 in the pass was the possibility of
head-of-line blocking, should we still consider bert draft that was
proposed.

The other concern was on how smaller device fit in this, if you send large
payload that are out of scope for a constraint device, how should this be
handle (if should be handle that the procol level)

Cheers

Simon

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:45 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> As discussed in a previous message, the in-room consensus in Buenos
> Aires was to revert the decision we made in Yokohama to go for
> alternative L1, and to instead select alternative L3.
>
> This is a one-week call for confirmation of that decision.
> Specifically, if you have an objection to this decision, please speak up
> on the mailing list by 2016-04-13.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email