Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 10 September 2014 05:16, Simon Perreault <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This email initiates a one-week working-group last call on this draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00

-01 fails to address the comments on this thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg00687.html

The introduction needs some editorial work to trim it down.  Point 3
makes no sense at all to me, and there are grammatical errors in point
1.  However, I would take everything from after the first sentence of
the second paragraph and before the last paragraph and delete it.  A
small note about being able to identify the purpose of a flow without
initiating a session seems appropriate.

I still think that you want different ways to identify the various
forms: TURN/TLS, TURN/DTLS, TURN/TCP, TURN/UDP.  I realize that there
is some disagreement about that, but we've found this to be useful in
identifying a protocol outside of the context of its use elsewhere.
If you don't do that, please make sure that you explicitly enumerate
the protocols that this does identify fully.

This isn't ready.