> On 22. okt. 2015, at 16.14, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > draft-welzl-taps-transports currently only covers TCP and SCTP. But then: > > how many other protocols? > > It seems people agree that the protocols covered in > > draft-welzl-taps-transports should be a subset of the protocols covered in > > draft-ietf-taps-transports. My question is, then: how to choose the subset? > > > > It seems obvious to include protocols that are seeing some deployment, i.e. > > of course UDP, maybe UDP-Lite (?), but also MPTCP… > > However: if that is the only decision ground, we probably wouldn’t include > > DCCP. Are we then making a significant mistake, missing a lesson to be > > learned? > > > > That, to me, is a discussion I’d like to have in Yokohama. > > +1, and FWIW that's exactly the same starting point I got to on my own. > > > Any volunteers to kick off the lead the discussion?
Let me try to roll this some more on the list, because I gave it some thought: The goal is to have something buildable. So if we allow protocols that are hardly deployed into draft-welzl-taps-transports, then this gives us a list that may include services that one can never implement unless hardly-deployed protocol X is used, or other protocols are extended to all of a sudden provide this functionality. Thus, boring as it may seem, “widely deployed protocols” can be the only reasonable criterion to allow adding protocols in draft-welzl-taps-transports Thoughts? Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
