Re: Comment: draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-05.txt

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

Speaking as a WG participant:

hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:
> At 5:43 AM -0700 6/26/03, Allison Mankin wrote:
>
> > Overall this is a very well-written spec.  One transport issue and two
> > questions about scope - perfectly reasonable answers are out of scope,
> > or already discussed and dismissed.
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > The protocol MUST
> >    define one or more transport mechanisms for mandatory implementation.
> >                     ^congestion-aware or overload-aware
> >
> > I realize that the transport choice could be UDP, but in that case,
> > congestion-aware would mean UDP without aggressive retransmission.
> > And in the case that that "transport" may be used here to mean a
> > higher layer protocol such as mail or http, then the term
> > overload-aware applies.
>
>
> Speaking as one of the chairs, this change should be uncontroversial,
> so an RFC editor note could cover it.
I believe the intention of the requirement is to be an
*application* transport.  I.e., beep, http, etc.

Leslie.



--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
    Yours to discover."
                               -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------