[Taps] Going forward with draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-02 in TAPS?

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 12 August 2016 15:53 UTC

Message-ID: <57ADF105.6000806@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:53:41 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: taps@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/Y0fI6SDYErh1_tSJ5cBp3Ay1OIw>
Subject: [Taps] Going forward with draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-02 in TAPS?
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk

At the TAPS meeting in Berlin, I said the authors think that all the 
comments we knew about have been addressed by new text. I also took away 
a promise to ask about the proposed publication of this UDP/UDP-Lite 
usage draft.

My suggestion at the meeting was that the TAPS WG should adopt the 
UDP/UDP-Lite usage work (draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-02) 
as one of a pair of documents, with a proposal to publish in 
synchronisation with  draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-01.

I'm thinking that if we take this approach, then we need to ensure that 
pass 3 in this second document exactly matches the format of 
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-01.

So, my questions this time on the list are again...
(1) Is it a good way to go forward to seek to publish a separate RFC on 
UDP/UDP-L?
(2) Does anyone now have any additional comments on the UDP or UDP-L usage?

Gorry

[Taps] Going forward with draft-fairhurst-taps-tr… Gorry Fairhurst