Re: [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Sat, 10 November 2012 08:37 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AF521F84B7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:37:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTApHWKUtFLK for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE7921F87A6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.53.147.184] (unknown [80.187.201.11]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B11C1C0C0693; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:37:36 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F0D767632@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:37:34 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42969507-0697-45CA-91B8-617E586BFCE0@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F0D767632@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "randall@lakerest.net" <randall@lakerest.net>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:37:40 -0000
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:59 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote: > Hi, > > > While reading this draft, it felt more like a Info or BCP draft rather than a STD track RFC... (overall, this draft can be paraphrased "Be sensible when using SCTP over DTLS"). We currently use RFC 2119 terms, so Informational might not be appropriate. BCP is fine with me, we don't define anything new in the document. > > Apart from the obvious loose ends (dependencies on not-yet-adopted drafts) there is also this one loose end 5.7, multiplexing large chunks. IMHO this makes it hard, at this stage, to proceed with this draft on STD track; The interleaving is intentionally left loose right not. I hope we have an ID by the next IETF. > > Having that said, I would still support adoption as a WG item... Great. And thanks a lot for the comments. Best regards Michael > > Best regards, > > Richard Scheffenegger > >
- [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tsvwg] draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps Michael Tuexen