this makes a lot of sense to me Sent from my iPhone
> On 31. jan. 2016, at 16.05, [email protected] wrote: > > I think documents that describe how the IETF got to decisions can be > useful, providing useful insights to why things emerged. > > However, I think they are more usefully published as an RFC when the WG > heads towards the end of the design process - when its can be clearer what > they need to contain - an ID can exist and evolve to capture the inputs as > the WG heads towards its milestones. > > Gorry > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
