This might be a useful document, but it seems like it overlooks a few "elephants in the room":
1) lots of services use TCP or UDP because they want to work through NATs 2) lots of services do just fine with the services provided by TCP or UDP It would be useful to address those issues head-on. Otherwise, this really looks like a group that's looking under its own lamppost for solutions. Joe On 1/30/2016 12:40 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Looking at the current charter items, when TAPS is over, folks will see > RFCs describing services of transports, an overview of what a TAPS > system should provide, and how it could be implemented - but they do > lack background unless they read stuff elsewhere: why is a TAPS system > even needed? What is so important about it? What are its benefits, > compared to simply building your own protocol? > > I think it makes sense to provide these answers in an RFC. As part of > the effort to motivate the need for TAPS, such text was written up in > draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services-01 > > Is this group interested in taking this document further? What do y’all > think? > > Cheers, > Michael > > > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
