well - they have been refusing too long to do them at all. i guess that’s part of the problem
Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Apr 2018, at 09:42, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > How dead is posix these days? Ietf does not generally do apis well. > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 9:14 AM Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jesper Louis Andersen >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> please, please, people, take a look at the ietf taps (“transport >>>> services”) working group :-) >>>> >>> >>> I tried looking it up. It seems the TAPS WG is about building a consistent >>> interface to different protocols in order to get a new interface rather >>> than, say, the bsd socket interface. >>> >>> But my search turned up several drafts from the WG. Did you have one in >>> particular in mind? >> >> Thanks for taking a look! >> Indeed, it’s about a consistent interface - I was provoked to send this >> message by the reference to ossification, and talk of messages (lacking in >> TCP). >> Sure, when you’re in control of both ends of a connection, you can build >> whatever you want on top of UDP - but there’s a lot of wheel re-inventing >> there. Really, the transport layer can’t change as long as applications (or >> their libraries) are exposed to only the services of TCP and UDP, and >> thereby statically bound to these transport protocols. >> >> I think I’d recommend this draft as a starting point: >> https://taps-api.github.io/drafts/draft-trammell-taps-interface.html >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
