On 11/09/2017, 16:48, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: No Objection
<snip>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
- I (still) don't understand why draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp was kept
in a separate document, given there is even a separate empty section in this
doc. You basically have to stop reading there, go to the other doc, read it,
and come back. That doesn't make sense to me.
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
I'll speak only to the last comment which was discussed in IETF-96.
The WG looked at this and there were pro's and con's in both a single
document, and two separate documents. In the end, the decision by the WG
was to publish the initial datagram analysis (UDP and UDP-L) as a
separate document, which cut them into smaller pieces and was more
managebale, but the WG would request the RFC-Ed to publish the two
documents as a pair.
I see another advantage: Much of the API requirements for UDP is
scattered across various RFCs - and some implicit (RFCs that state a
need to allow the stack to do something, but do not indicate how it will
be done). It was thought a separate datagram document may have further
utility for people as a informative single reference on how to present a
datagram API, beyond its input to the TAPs transport design.
Gorry
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
