To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
Date:
Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:38:42 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: TCP Mapping
First, I am guilty of making everyone work over the weekend... Scott, please see my comments in line. --Hong -----Original Message----- From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com] Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 5:47 PM To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'; Liu, Hong Cc: '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? <HL> Just want to make sure that I understand correctly. Strictly speaking, BEEP is not a transport protocol like TCP. It is a shim layer protocol that makes application framing easier. BEEP by itself also needs to be mapped to a transport protocol. RFC3081 defines the TCP mapping for BEEP, and I assume that when we define EPP over BEEP over TCP, it is RFC3081 that is used for TCP mapping, not draft-ietf-provreg-epp-tcp-04.txt. So I do not see any problem here. Later on, we may also define EPP over SCTP. But by the same principle, EPP over BEEP over SCTP should use the SCTP mapping for BEEP, not the SCTP mapping for EPP. Not that we want to do so, just another example. </HL> 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. <HL> Yes, indeed. We want to make PUSH work for TCP since this is what we have today. I see your point here: it would be best if we can define a transport independent PUSH for EPP. I am still exploring this on the list, using TCP as a starting point. </HL> 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... <HL> Have a good vacation next week. I will be out for the later part of next week, too. </HL> -Scott-