To:
"'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
Cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:47:10 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: TCP Mapping
> (from draft-ietf-provreg-epp-tcp-04.txt) > 4. Datagram Format > > The data field of a TCP datagram MUST contain an EPP datagram. The > EPP datagram contains two fields: a 32-bit header that describes > > the P-bit (is the message "PUSH" or "PULL") One big bug with this approach: putting _anything_ specific to this push/pull thing in the TCP draft is going to cause a problem with BEEP transport (or any transport other than streaming TCP) because the BEEP draft (for example) depends on standard BEEP profiles -- not the EPP TCP draft. If this gets put into the TCP draft, just how is it going to work with BEEP transport, email transport, or whatever other transport someone might define in the future? Hong has already said (and I'm paraphrasing) that a goal is to make the push thing work without BEEP. Well, if it's going to work with any transport the mechanics can't be put into one of the transport drafts. It has to be defined at a higher layer. FWIW, assuming this discussion carries past tonight I'm going to have to pick it up after 8 July; silence != concurrence. It's time for a little R&R... -Scott-