Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Thanks for dealing with this, comments in-line. On 16/05/2017 15:09, Michael Welzl wrote: Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line below, marked with [Michael]. When I say "done" I mean my local copy - still need to fix some more nits, but I thought sharing this answer already

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line below, marked with [Michael]. When I say "done" I mean my local copy - still need to fix some more nits, but I thought sharing this answer already now is useful. Cheers, Michael > 2. Introduction > > This document presents defined

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

FWIW: On 5/12/2017 5:31 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> --- >> Get Interface MTU is missing from pass 2 and 3: >> >> ADD to pass 2: >> >> GET_INTERFACE_MTU.UDP: >> Pass 1 primitive: GET_INTERFACE_MTU >> Returns: Maximum datagram size (bytes) > But this

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Well, that may be true, but it's also not how it should be, according to the rfcs... and apps assuming such misbehavior isn't going to make the situation any better. today tcp relies on routers not introducing huge reordering, and net admins hopefully know that... so they cause harm by

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

In line: > On May 12, 2017, at 6:23 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > > More below. > > On 12/05/2017, 16:27, Michael Welzl wrote: >>> On May 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>> >>> See below. >>> >>> On 12/05/2017, 13:31, Michael Welzl

Re: [Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

Hi, Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other -usage draft received offline). I’ll try to address them all - but there are a two technical questions in this email that made me stop, so I’ll cut all the editorial stuff away and discuss them here - in line below:

[Taps] New rev of udp-usage (01) and review comments on taps-transport-usage-04

We have just revised the UDP usage draft for TAPs in preparation for WG review. This improves readability and fixed all known issues: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-01.txt In doing so, we have carefully reviewed the TAPS transport usage draft and