Re: [Teep] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-14: (with COMMENT)

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 3:53 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-14:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-14: No Objection
[...]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this document. There was one thing in the introduction which
> rubbed
> me the wrong way. I acknowledge that this is probably due to a defect in my
> personality, but I thought I'd flag it and you can address it or disregard it
> as you please.
> 
> The sentence in question is,
> 
>    There are two topological scenarios in which TEEP could be deployed:
> 
> The quoted sentence implies that the list (Agent behind NAT/firewall, TAM
> behind NAT/firewall) is exhaustive. But surely both TAM and Agent on the
> open
> Internet would work too?
> 
> For that matter, there's a large body of work (in which I am not at all expert)
> that aims to accommodate both client and server being behind a NAT or
> firewall.
> I assume you don't want to go to the additional labor to cater for this
> scenario, and therefore it really is one in which TEEP could *not* be
> deployed.

Updated sentence to say:
"There are two topological scenarios (among others) in which TEEP could be deployed:"
since the point of the text this prefixes is just to motivate the scope of the document being Agent-initiated connections.

Github copy at https://github.com/ietf-teep/teep-over-http
has been updated, and I expect to post -15 after the TEEP meeting on Monday.

Dave