Re: [tram] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 26 August 2019 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233B812011D; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 0asYrk9fzsWp; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8782120854; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x7QGFgFn014900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:15:44 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:15:42 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Felipe Garrido (fegarrid)" <fegarrid@cisco.com>
Cc: "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "tasveren@rbbn.com" <tasveren@rbbn.com>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190826161541.GH84368@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <D4026211-D94F-4BE9-BF3E-0B655AF4E83C@cisco.com> <20190819234944.GC60855@kduck.mit.edu> <6BEF16A5-8FC0-4BED-9C09-A47EF0B76CF1@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6BEF16A5-8FC0-4BED-9C09-A47EF0B76CF1@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/dlZEDxr821_kxEaLA1bKvvSqMPQ>
Subject: Re: [tram] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:15:57 -0000

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:11:22PM +0000, Felipe Garrido (fegarrid) wrote:
> Ben, 
> 
> I agree with the improvement but would rather use the same terminology as in rfc4821. 
> It' would be, 
> 
> The packets that are to be associated to a given flow's identifier are selected according to Section 5.2 of [RFC4821]."

That works for me; thanks!

-Ben