Hi, Susan, On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote:
> Spencer: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:08 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: > (with COMMENT) > > > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > In this text: > > > > 7.1. One Control and Data Exchange Protocol > > > > The I2RS > > protocol may need to use several underlying transports (TCP, SCTP > > (stream control transport protocol), DCCP (Datagram Congestion > > Control Protocol)), with suitable authentication and integrity > > protection mechanisms. These different transports can support > > different types of communication (e.g. control, reading, > > notifications, and information collection) and different sets of > > data. Whatever transport is used for the data exchange, it must also > > support suitable congestion control mechanisms. The transports > > chosen should be operator and implementor friendly to ease adoption. > > > > I echo Benoit's question about defining multiple underlying transports. I > suspect you'll need to pick one mandatory-to-implement transport protocol, > and when everyone has to support that one, I'd be surprised to see > implementations that support more than one transport protocol unless the > mandatory-to-implement transport protocol is seriously broken in some > scenarios. > > > > ----- > > Spencer: > > > > Does adding this text as a subsequent paragraph resolve your comment? > > > > The transports that the I2RS protocol can run over will be specified in > the > > I2RS protocol, and in the I2RS protocol each transport protocol > > as either mandatory to implement or optional to implement. > That's fine. If I'm still an AD when the protocol shows up, I'll probably look at how many transport protocols are specified, but letting the working group spend more time figuring out what makes sense to them is very reasonable. Thanks! Spencer
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
