Thanks for dealing with this, comments in-line.
On 16/05/2017 15:09, Michael Welzl wrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line below, marked with [Michael]. When I say
"done" I mean my local copy - still need to fix some more nits, but I thought
sharing this answer already now
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your comments! Answers in line below, marked with [Michael].
When I say "done" I mean my local copy - still need to fix some more nits, but
I thought sharing this answer already now is useful.
Cheers,
Michael
> 2. Introduction
>
> This document presents defined inte
FWIW:
On 5/12/2017 5:31 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> ---
>> Get Interface MTU is missing from pass 2 and 3:
>>
>> ADD to pass 2:
>>
>> GET_INTERFACE_MTU.UDP:
>> Pass 1 primitive: GET_INTERFACE_MTU
>> Returns: Maximum datagram size (bytes)
> But this d
Well, that may be true, but it's also not how it should be, according to the
rfcs... and apps assuming such misbehavior isn't going to make the situation
any better.
today tcp relies on routers not introducing huge reordering, and net admins
hopefully know that... so they cause harm by config
In line:
> On May 12, 2017, at 6:23 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> More below.
>
> On 12/05/2017, 16:27, Michael Welzl wrote:
>>> On May 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2017, 13:31, Michael Welzl wrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for al
More below.
On 12/05/2017, 16:27, Michael Welzl wrote:
On May 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
See below.
On 12/05/2017, 13:31, Michael Welzl wrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other
-usage draft received offline).
I’ll try to addres
> On May 12, 2017, at 3:24 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>
> See below.
>
> On 12/05/2017, 13:31, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other
>> -usage draft received offline).
>>
>> I’ll try to address them all - but there are a t
See below.
On 12/05/2017, 13:31, Michael Welzl wrote:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other
-usage draft received offline).
I’ll try to address them all - but there are a two technical questions in this
email that made me stop, so I’ll cut all the edit
Hi,
Thanks a lot for all your comments (plus the nits we authors of the other
-usage draft received offline).
I’ll try to address them all - but there are a two technical questions in this
email that made me stop, so I’ll cut all the editorial stuff away and discuss
them here - in line below:
We have just revised the UDP usage draft for TAPs in preparation for WG
review. This improves readability and fixed all known issues:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-01.txt
In doing so, we have carefully reviewed the TAPS transport usage draft
and hav
10 matches
Mail list logo