On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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. I don't understand. Why leave out any of the protocols included in draft-ietf-taps-transports? Is there an argument other than for expedience? --aaron
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
