Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:37:33 +0300

Hi James,

A suggestion.  Could we ask from Allison to defer this discussion (i.e. -
drop the requirement completely from the requirements).  A much better
way forward would be someone to produce a short document discussing
different protocols that CT could use.  The pros & cons of each.

The list that has been discussed (if I remember correctly) are:

	1) UDP
	2) TCP
	3) SCTP
	4) PR-SCTP (formerly U-SCTP)
	5) ICMP 
	6) DCCP (formerly DCP) - this one wasn't discussed, but is possible.

Additionally, we have discussed a possible framework approach for CT solutions,
so I am not sure if we need to specify a single transport protocol - if
we go down a framework path.

John

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:11:23 -0700

John,

> different protocols that CT could use.  The pros & cons of each.

I am OK with doing this, but I think I would like to get some comment first on
the requirement I proposed. Perhaps we could run the comment period for a week,
then have last call on that requirement.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:11:23 -0700

John,

            jak