Perfectly fine by me to incorporate that! The main question on the table is: provided that we'll incorporate such comments, should this be a product of the WG? You say “this might be a useful document”, so I take that as a “yes” from you…
Cheers, Michael > On 31. jan. 2016, at 05.12, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > This might be a useful document, but it seems like it overlooks a few > "elephants in the room": > > 1) lots of services use TCP or UDP because they want to work through NATs > > 2) lots of services do just fine with the services provided by TCP or UDP > > It would be useful to address those issues head-on. Otherwise, this > really looks like a group that's looking under its own lamppost for > solutions. > > Joe > > On 1/30/2016 12:40 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> Looking at the current charter items, when TAPS is over, folks will see >> RFCs describing services of transports, an overview of what a TAPS >> system should provide, and how it could be implemented - but they do >> lack background unless they read stuff elsewhere: why is a TAPS system >> even needed? What is so important about it? What are its benefits, >> compared to simply building your own protocol? >> >> I think it makes sense to provide these answers in an RFC. As part of >> the effort to motivate the need for TAPS, such text was written up in >> draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moncaster-tsvwg-transport-services-01 >> >> Is this group interested in taking this document further? What do y’all >> think? >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps >> _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
