On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 3/7/2014 1:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Hi Joe, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Brian, >> >> Although I don't disagree with the points below, it's useful to >> consider that INT is already working in this area, so I don't see >> either (a) or (c) as being relevant unless you expect to shift >> current INT docs to other WGs too. >> >> >> Respectfully disagree. >> There has been some time passed since then and many thing happened such >> as hiaps and a solution draft submission to tcpm. >> > > IMO: > > TCMP - TCP *minor* mods. > > TSVWG - TCP major mods or mods that affect multiple transports (IMO this > should). > > INT - endpoint IDs, except specific solutions like HIP and mobility > > BEHAVE - changes local to how NATs work > > Or a different group?
> > Use case draft contains many more use cases than was discussed before. >> Different use cases may require different solutions at different levels. >> I think it is the mystery of this century to find out where this works >> belongs :-). >> > > If it is then IMO you need to consider splitting it into separate docs. > > Well, this could be one option. I think right now, requirements should be split into a separate doc. For the use cases, we need to do solution analysis work. Without such work it is difficult to establish that we need different solutions for different use cases. Behcet > Joe >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
