Thanks Joe,

This is very much a first attempt to quickly put a little substance on the
framework, to see if it can work and gather thoughts. Your read through is
helpful

I'll reply just to the UDP feedback below:

> Some feedback below. Although I focus on some TCP and UDP specifics,
> some observations apply to other transports as well.
>
> Joe
>
> -----

<snip --- TCP part to be discussed in a separate thread>

>
> 3.4.1
>       UDP doesn't fragment packets into IP packets; it maps to
>       a single IP packet, which itself may be fragmented. The
>       IP fragments are what are limited by the lower-layer
>       frames.
>
Sure, that's a better way to say this,

>       Because UDP is connectionless, if you're going to talk
>       about properties of sequences of messages, you need to
>       explain what that sequence is - i.e., you need to
>       define what it means to have a UDP flow, and only
>       such flows are subject to flow/congestion control,
>       PMTUD, etc.
>
I get it, we can say that applications send a sequence of messages and
that these
constitute a UDP flow, that can then implement these mechanisms as an
upper layer protocol.

>
> 3.4.2
>       RFC768 describes an API for UDP. As with TCP,
>       it leaves out options and parameters.
>
I'd say "describes" is perhaps over stating this - but I accept we do need
to acknowledge this REF, and probably also refer to other standards -- do
you have ideas of what specific ones we should cite?,


For UDP, I thought of also adding:

   Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be connected, i.e.,
   to bind a UDP socket to a specific pair of addresses and ports.  This
   is similar to the corresponding TCP sockets API functionality.
   However, for UDP, this is only a local operation that serves to
   simplify the local send/receive functions and to filter the traffic
   for the specified addresses and ports [RFC5405].

> 3.4.3
>       should include port demuxing here too, with the same
>       caveats as noted above for TCP (i.e., ports for
>       messages have multiple meanings)
>
Yes. I'm not sure how this relates to TAPS, are you thinking that we
should say "choice of port" has a bearing on whether a packet is
transmitted along an end to end path by the network?

Gorry

> ----
>
>
> On 12/18/2014 6:44 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> Greetings, all,
>>
>> We've posted a -01 rev of the TAPS transports document. We believe that
>> the format and level of detail for the TCP section is about what we're
>> targeting for each of the other sections, but this is still open to
>> discussion. The document also includes at least a little text on most of
>> the transport protocols identified in the -00 revision. Welcome also to
>> Mirja Kühlewind, added as an additional editor.
>>
>> If there are any additional transport protocols we're missing, or other
>> comments on document structure, please send them to the list.
>>
>> Document source is available (with a kramdown-rfc2629-based workflow) at
>> https://github.com/britram/taps-transports. Feel free to send pull
>> requests against the markdown, or XML/text diffs to the editors, for
>> contributions to sections of the document.
>>
>> Cheers, and merry Christmas,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>> On 18 Dec 2014, at 15:06, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the Transport Services Working Group of
>>> the IETF.
>>>
>>>        Title           : Services provided by IETF transport protocols
>>> and congestion control mechanisms
>>>        Authors         : Godred Fairhurst
>>>                          Brian Trammell
>>>                          Mirja Kuehlewind
>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-taps-transports-01.txt
>>>     Pages           : 15
>>>     Date            : 2014-12-18
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>   This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols
>>>   and congestion control mechanisms.  It is designed to help
>>>   application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of
>>>   the IETF TAPS Working Group.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports/
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-taps-transports-01
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-taps-transports-01
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Taps mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taps mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
>

_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Reply via email to