> On 05 Dec 2015, at 17:02, Michael Tuexen
> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Nov 2015, at 14:33, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below):
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even
>>> remotely. I just finishe
> On 03 Nov 2015, at 14:33, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>
> A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below):
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even
>> remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the
>> question of RF
> On 5. nov. 2015, at 00.02, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen
> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>>
>> I believe that was just a misunderstanding: Karen thought that I had
> only
>> used RFC793 when writing draft-welzl-taps-transports-00, but really I
> did try
>> to use all relevant RFCs.
>>
> [Karen Elisabet
HI,
>
> I believe that was just a misunderstanding: Karen thought that I had
only
> used RFC793 when writing draft-welzl-taps-transports-00, but really I
did try
> to use all relevant RFCs.
>
[Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen] ..well, I did observe that you were
referring to rfc1122 (and also RFC
> On 4. nov. 2015, at 19.11, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported
>> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into
>> IETF RFCs.
>> O
On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote:
> HI,
>
> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported
> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into
> IETF RFCs.
> One need at least to relate to the *basic functions* of the POSI
: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm cutting the part about URG, because here we agree. I think we agree
> about PUSH too, but I'll say it in line below :-)
>
>
> >> and about PUSH:
> >>
> >> ***
> &
Hi,
I'm cutting the part about URG, because here we agree. I think we agree about
PUSH too, but I'll say it in line below :-)
>> and about PUSH:
>>
>> ***
>> The 'receive'
>> command can (under some conditions) yield the status of the PUSH flag
>> according to [RFC0793], but this TCP func
HI Michael,
Thanks a lot.
Please see inline below.
BR, Karen
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Welzl [mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no]
> Sent: 4. november 2015 20:06
> To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen
> Cc: Fairhurst ;
> taps@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 645
Hi,
Thanks Karen for your long email and helpful comments!
I re-order it a bit and cut some parts to get my answer more structured:
First, to get this straight in the discussion:
>>> A side note about TCP, because Karen made a comment about the TCP API
>> too:
>>> a similar logic applies here
t: 4. november 2015 02:44
>> To: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Michael Welzl
>> Cc: taps WG ; to...@isi.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>>> GF: From a TSV
.
BR, Karen
> -Original Message-
> From: Taps [mailto:taps-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: 4. november 2015 02:44
> To: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Michael Welzl
> Cc: taps WG ; to...@isi.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
&g
nal Message-
> From: Taps [mailto:taps-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Sent: 3. november 2015 22:33
> To: Michael Welzl
> Cc: taps WG
> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports
>
> A note just on the INFO status of SCTP AP
On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> GF: From a TSVWG Chair perspective, beware here... *ALL* more recent IETF
> SCTP API work from TSVWG is INFO. Each SCTP RFC is expected to have an
> informative section that describes the API together with the normative
> protocol spec. That i
A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below):
>
> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even
> remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the
> question of RFC 6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on
> only R
Dear all,
Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even remotely. I
just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the question of RFC
6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on only RFC 4960 and
not on RFC 6458?" - was brought up several times. I
16 matches
Mail list logo
