Thanks ... inline ...
On Feb 17, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Michael Chen wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I spotted some problems in the IANA values of base-07 draft that just came
> out:
>
> 1. Why is the IANA value for CERTIFICATE_BY_NAME 16 instead of 4?
4-15 were previously used by diagnostic stuff so the certificate got a code
that did not conflict with theses so there was no issues during transition.
Just as FYI they were
| ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE | 4 | RFC-AAAA |
| SOFTWARE_VERSION | 5 | RFC-AAAA |
| MACHINE_UPTIME | 6 | RFC-AAAA |
| APP_UPTIME | 7 | RFC-AAAA |
| MEMORY_FOOTPRINT | 8 | RFC-AAAA |
| DATASIZE_StoreD | 9 | RFC-AAAA |
| INSTANCES_StoreD | 10 | RFC-AAAA |
| MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD | 11 | RFC-AAAA |
| EWMA_BYTES_SENT | 12 | RFC-AAAA |
| EWMA_BYTES_RCVD | 13 | RFC-AAAA |
| LAST_CONTACT | 14 | RFC-AAAA |
| RTT | 15 | RFC-AAAA |
>
> 2. The IANA Message Code 30 should be for "app_attach_ans" and not
> "attach_ans"
fixed
>
> 3. The IANA values for the 4 AttachLite message code should be marked
> "unused".
fixed
>
> Thanks
>
> --Michael
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [P2PSIP] transport/ICE issues in -07
> From: Bruce Lowekamp <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, February 17, 2010 8:55 am
> To: [email protected]
>
> We have a variety of outstanding issues regarding transport and ICE.
> This email tries to summarize the approach adopted in -07 for these
> issues.
>
> * ICE-TCP is currently MTI and thus a normative dependency. However,
> it's unclear when ICE-TCP will be finished.
> * The draft needs to specify framing and a timeout for TCP or other
> stream-oriented protocols that do not provide such notifications
> themselves.
> * We have the AIMD proposal in an appendix,
> * The authors promised to merge [App]Attach and [App]AttachLite into
> [App]Attach, but have not done so.
> * Feedback about various related issues from WGLC.
>
> To reconcile these issues, the following changes have been made.
>
> * New text has been inserted to clarify that new ICE transport
> protocols and extensions (such as ICE-TCP) can be used within RELOAD
> by defining new codepoints.
>
> * References to ICE-TCP have been removed from the specification.
>
> * "Reliability for Unreliable Links" is renamed "Simple Reliability
> (SR)".
>
> * The header from SR is now used for TCP as well. It wastes a few
> bytes, but allows the sender to receive ACKs from the receiver,
> required to time RTT and determine when the link should be regarded
> as dead.
>
> * ICE Transports are now labeled Overlay Link protocols, as they
> specify not only transport but also framing, etc., eg DTLS/UDP with SR
>
> * *AttachLite are removed. In their place, new overlay link protocols
> are defined. DTLS/UDP with SR no ICE and TLS/TCP with FS no ICE.
> Text is added that defines how lite and full ICE implementations
> interoperate. (text below)
>
> * The AIMD proposal is deleted in its entirety. In its place is a
> reference to future definitions of semi-reliable datagram-oriented
> protocols over UDP such as SCTP and DCCP currently under discussion
> in TSV. Preference is recommended for these, as any would be
> superior to all current transport options (high-performance without
> head-of-line blocking).
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
