Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)

[tytso]

   From: Mark Allman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:12:52 -0500

   I am fairly unconvinced in the arguments made by Mr. Gao.  However,
   maybe a TCPng is the wrong way to look at things.  A better model,
   it seems to me, is the one followed by SCTP.  In other words, let's
   build a new transport that has semantics that are different from
   TCP.  As long as it is safe (i.e., follows good congestion control),
   why should we care how many of these protocols are defined?  After
   we ensure the protocols are safe we can just let Darwinism take its
   course.

Does SCTP really have different semantics from TCP?  I thought it was
more of a superset.  

                                                - Ted