At the TAPS meeting in Berlin, I said the authors think that all the
comments we knew about have been addressed by new text. I also took away
a promise to ask about the proposed publication of this UDP/UDP-Lite
usage draft.
My suggestion at the meeting was that the TAPS WG should adopt the
UDP/UDP-Lite usage work (draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-usage-udp-02)
as one of a pair of documents, with a proposal to publish in
synchronisation with draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-01.
I'm thinking that if we take this approach, then we need to ensure that
pass 3 in this second document exactly matches the format of
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-01.
So, my questions this time on the list are again...
(1) Is it a good way to go forward to seek to publish a separate RFC on
UDP/UDP-L?
(2) Does anyone now have any additional comments on the UDP or UDP-L usage?
Gorry
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
