On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:26 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] >> Envoyé : jeudi 20 juillet 2017 16:37 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Olivier Bonaventure; Internet Area; tsv- >> [email protected] >> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP >> >> >> >> On 7/19/2017 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > Hi Joe, >> > >> > The text can always be worked out. This is not an IETF LC :) >> Agreed - I was explaining that the current text - and many of the >> responses in this chain, both from you and others, continues to be >> confusing. >> > [Med] Calling out those confusing points would help. > >> > The main point is that we are following your suggestion to define the >> solution as an application proxy using a dedicated port number. >> As feedback for the doc, that could be made more explicit, including in >> the title (this is an application proxy, not typically referred to as >> middleboxes). >> > > [Med] Looks like a good idea to me. > That use of the term middleboxes as opposed to proxy was also confusing to me. I'd also suggest not to call this a netwotk function, that has other connotations that don't apply here.
Tom >> That also includes limiting the doc to using TCP app-layer APIs and >> describing any behavior that *might* happen at the segment level as just >> that - hypothetical, perhaps desired, but NOT the mechanism being >> proposed. >> >> FWIW. >> >> Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
