On 22/10/2015 15:14, Aaron Falk wrote:
> draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and SCTP. But then:
how many other protocols?
> It seems people agree that the protocols covered in
draft-welzl-taps-transports should be a subset of the protocols covered in
draft-ietf-taps-transports. My question is, then: how to choose the subset?
>
> It seems obvious to include protocols that are seeing some deployment,
i.e. of course UDP, maybe UDP-Lite (?), but also MPTCP…
> However: if that is the only decision ground, we probably wouldn’t
include DCCP. Are we then making a significant mistake, missing a lesson to be
learned?
>
> That, to me, is a discussion I’d like to have in Yokohama.
+1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own.
Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion?
<snip test on another draft>
So, I think UDP, and UDP-Lite *NEED* to be included. MPTCOP also.
On DCCP, this has many services being re-invented above. I think we have
an interesting dilemma about whether to describe this, I suggest one of
the reason for the minimal use of DCCP (DCCP/UDP) could well be the lack
of a framework that allows this to be done without recoding an app. So,
if we had such a framework *WHEN* DCCP/UDP was done, we may now have
seen more usage.
--aaron
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
Gorry
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
