Re: Last Call: draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option (VoIP Configuration Server Address Option) to Informational RFC
Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 07 December 2008 19:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCF33A6893; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCAD3A6851; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:17:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Syxkp-SFedpD; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE903A6893; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,730,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="208311794"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2008 19:17:38 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB7JHc36013149; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:17:38 -0800
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB7JHavO011747; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:17:36 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20081125171747.7E37D3A6C18@core3.amsl.com>
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option (VoIP Configuration Server Address Option) to Informational RFC
References: <20081125171747.7E37D3A6C18@core3.amsl.com>
Message-Id: <80FF14F4-9B55-401F-8CE7-2D2E2ACDF973@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:17:30 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2086; t=1228677458; x=1229541458; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Last=20Call=3A=20draft-raj-dhc-tftp-add r-option=20(VoIP=20Configuration=20=20Server=20Address=20Opt ion)=20to=20Informational=20RFC=20 |Sender:=20; bh=eQaQjr1UQ8urjuxW2WDEeJeghg7MPFSn0I3IzGmVk8c=; b=TZlbMIgt5GSz1QiarJDPk+Wl6pROWS38VALashAqfyRDd+MpxKFN+ijE8Z VtZyZOoU5MP/jRd7BP5J4stLeUEWPLHEFwIa8hS3QuZEFduWnxxCkd+25Ldh ZQLBrp4Mep;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Say a client gets the an single address in the response. Now what protocol does it use? Does it just randomly try protocols seeing if one will work? It seems like it needs to say use TFTP. Or say something like try HTTP then TFTP or something. Just providing a random address does not seem like it will result in any interoperability. Particularly in the case where phones from more than one vendor want to work on the same network with same DHCP server. I also think it is important to mention the limitations of TFTP. The ping time from my home across the VPN to the the tftp server my phone reaches is around 120 ms. TFTP is a stop an wait protocol without overlapping transactions of 512 payload bytes. So if I want to download a 20 meg firmware image for my phone, it takes a few hours regardless of what my bandwidth is. Note my crappy DSL connection with the same VPN would download that same image over HTTP in well under a minute. Cullen <in my individual contributor role> On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:17 AM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > consider > the following document: > > - 'VoIP Configuration Server Address Option ' > <draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04.txt> as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-12-23. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12769&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Last Call: draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option (Vo… Cullen Jennings