Subject: RE: [lemonade] WGLC Deployments

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:08:21 -0700

At 12:19 PM +0100 10/27/06, Ben Last wrote:

>  I didn't make any comments because I read it on a plane, made comments
>  as I went along and then found that they had all been anticipated (ie,
>  stuff about not using tcp keepalive).  Thus it passes all my criteria
>  for wonderfulness :)

Thank you.

>  More seriously: in the note in 6.1 "Firewall Traversal" about use of
>  http as a bearer, is it appropriate to reference the P-IMAP draft that
>  expresses a preference for HTTP as a bearer?
>  (draft-maes-lemonade-p-imap-12, Appendix A)?

Reference in what way?  As an example of a draft that does what the 
text says not to do?  I don't think an example is really needed, so I 
don't see that adding a reference improves this document.  If you 
think an example would help, it would be better to point to a 
published document, I think.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
As you know, any depiction of nasal mucus brings with it problems for
our sales division.
    --ABC's Broadcast Standards & Practices board, to producers of the
    cartoon "Bump in the Night"

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: "Ben Last" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:17:53 -0000

From: Randall Gellens [mailto:[email-masked]] 

>Reference in what way?  As an example of a draft that does what the
text says not to do?
>I don't think an example is really needed, so I don't see that adding a
reference improves
>this document.  If you think an example would help, it would be better
to point to a
>published document, I think.

Perhaps "reference" is the wrong word, but the P-IMAP drafts (which I
acknowledge are unpublished but which are implemented in a commercial
product) do set our arguments for the use of HTTP.  Since the document
argues against its use, I wondered whether some better collation of the
arguments might make things clearer.  Though that may not be appropriate
for this document; feel free to consider my comment a note in passing
and freely ignorable.

Regards
Ben