HI, See below.
>-----Original Message----- >From: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:42 PM >To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen >Cc: "Mirja Kühlewind"; Olivier Mehani; Simone Ferlin-Oliveira; taps WG >Subject: Re: [Taps] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-taps- >transports-03.txt > >See below > >> Hi Mirja, >> >>>>> >>>>> Having said this, I'd like to first see a complete section (3.2) on >>>>> MPTCP before we start to writing something on this in section 4. >>>>> However, I'm sure you could also help to provide some text in >>>>> section 3.2...? That would be great! >>>> >>>> Yes, that was the plan. I think the API for both SCTP and MPTCP are >>>> relevant in highlighting the underlying features of the protocol, >>>> even though these APIs are not what needs to be described. >>> >>>Yep. APIs should not be discussed in section 4. However, for the >>>protocol description in section 3, if you look at the other >>>descriptions, there is >> also a >>>subsection on the (higher layer) interface. As you say there is often >>>a >> strong >>>dependency therefore I think there is a purpose to describe the >>>interface >> as >>>well (in section 3) to have a ground truth for discussion. >>> >>>> >>>> The synthesis in section 4 should come at a later stage, once 3.2 >>>> (and perhaps a similar discussion in SCTP's section), have been written up. >>> >>>Yes! >>> >> [Karen ] Do you here refer to SCTP MH or CMT SCTP ? >> >> MPTCP include concurrency aspects which, for SCTP, only significantly >> arise with CMT SCTP. >> >> It has previously been stated that CMT SCTP would not be in scope of taps. >> Is that still the assumption ? >> >> BR, Karen >> >>>Mirja >>> > >I think SCTP multihoming and path failover should be there. > >I personally think that formal discussion of SCTP/ CMT falls outside the scope >of TAPS, until the IETF decides to adopt this work (that's for TSVWG >sometime). However, I guess if TAPS wanted to refer to a paper on the >possibility of such extensions to SCTP in the discussion section that could >easily be considered. > [Karen ] I would definitively support that such references be made. Provided, of course, that such becomes relevant and meaningful in the context of Multi Path discussions in taps. I agree that we still have to wait and see for when CMT-SCTP makes it to the top of things to progress in tsvwg. BR, Karen >Gorry > _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
