On 3/16/14, 7:46 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > I've re-read this document, and I am still puzzled by why the IETF is > considering a standard for this. > > Fundamentally this is a simple change. It could be easilly implemented - > many of us already have some simple window-based UDP transfer protocol > like this that we use as a hack for specific cases where something strange > is needed.
On the other hand I'm aware of a least two implementations of tftp with a window scale function. It's maybe in the interests of clients and server implementations to interoperate. > However, I do not see a use-case where it is wise to > standardise this - I'd urge the community to re-think this: > > First, TFTP is an old protocol, and mostly FTP, NFS, SMB, and others have > replaced this for Internet use over TCP - at least we should acknowledge > that using TFTP in the general Internet is NOT RECOMMENDED - probablty > one reason why we as a community have not standardised this. This use-case > is not clear, why can FTP over TCP (or at least a minimal TCP) not be > used? I don't really a lot of use cases outside of scoped domains for tftp, I wouldn't use it on the internet at large, it is however widely implemented and relatively ubiquitous with respect to usage. devices need to boot-strap and when they do recourse to an unatheticated to resource demand facility is desirable.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
