Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

> On 03 Nov 2015, at 14:33, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > > A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below): >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even >> remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the >> question of

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

> On 4. nov. 2015, at 19.11, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: >> HI, >> >> As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported >> by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into >>

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

rg.abdn.ac.uk> Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; > taps@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports > > Hi, > > I'm cutting the part about URG, because here we agree. I think we agree > about PUSH too, but I'll say it in line below :-) &g

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

On 11/3/2015 5:27 PM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: > HI, > > As a general comment then I believe that when describing what is supported > by TCP/SCTP (or UDP) as standard then it does not suffice to look into > IETF RFCs. > One need at least to relate to the *basic functions* of the

[Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

Dear all, Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the question of RFC 6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on only RFC 4960 and not on RFC 6458?" - was brought up several times.

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

A note just on the INFO status of SCTP APIs (below): > > Dear all, > > Sorry for not being able to attend the TAPS meeting on site or even > remotely. I just finished watching the recording, and I noticed that the > question of RFC 6458 - "why is the SCTP part of draft-welzl- .. based on > only

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > GF: From a TSVWG Chair perspective, beware here... *ALL* more recent IETF > SCTP API work from TSVWG is INFO. Each SCTP RFC is expected to have an > informative section that describes the API together with the normative > protocol spec. That

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

november 2015 02:44 >> To: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> >> Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>; to...@isi.edu >> Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports >> >> >> >> On 11/3/2015 5:33 AM, go...@erg.abd

Re: [Taps] RFC 6458 etc. in draft-welzl-taps-transports

, Karen > -Original Message- > From: Taps [mailto:taps-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > Sent: 4. november 2015 02:44 > To: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> > Cc: taps WG <taps@ietf.org>; to...@isi.edu > Subject: Re: [Taps] RFC