Re: [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: (with COMMENT)
Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 14 September 2017 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE2013301A; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 crO0aLQc3N2M; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204::f0f0]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217B3132FA0; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C92681B000FA; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:19:56 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <59BA57CB.1000708@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:19:55 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, taps-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org
References: <150534437823.12565.1499220167114271596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150534437823.12565.1499220167114271596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/LadiRAkbEBwW8s8hE0oh_LHKq_0>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:20:20 -0000
Thanks Suresh, please see below. On 14/09/2017, 00:12, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-06: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 1 > > "The UDP and UDP-Lite sockets API differs from that for TCP in several key > ways." > > I was expecting the document to at least briefly describe the differences > following this. The socket option text that follows does not really fit the > bill. e.g. SO_REUSEADDR applies to TCP as well as UDP. > > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps I see, that wasn't quite the way I expected it to be read, so maybe we can suggest a slight re-write to the introduction to avoid misleading people and thereby better introduce what follows in the document: After the reference to Stevens, we suggest to insert: "In UDP and UDP-Lite, each datagram is a self-contained message of a specified length, and options at the transport layer can be used to set properties for all subsequent datagrams sent using a socket or changed for each datagram. For datagrams, this can require the application to use the API to set IP-level information (the IP Time To Live (TTL), Differentiated Services (DiffServ) Code Point, IP fragmentation, etc) for the datagrams it sends and receives. In contrast, when using TCP and other connection-oriented transports, the IP-level information normally either remains the same for the duration of a connection or is controlled by the transport protocol rather than the application. Socket options are used in the socket API to provide additional functions Examples of socket options (in this case commonly used by UDP multicast applications) include:" ... followed by the three example sockopts. (If we add this I think it also helps explain why the network-layer primitives appear. We would of course avoide redefining TTL, etc in the following paras.) Tom & Gorry
- [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draf… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [Taps] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draf… Suresh Krishnan