[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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
Ted:
It depends what you and Mark mean by semantics :)
SCTP has some different concepts than TCP.
Most noteably streams and un-ordered service. Even just
the unit of delivery being different does pose some semantical
differences (i.e. message versus byte stream). We have found
this quite a struggle has a group of us work on a sockets draft...
How do you map SCTP to the common sockets API... it is tricky and
has even caused some heated debate (right Kacheong?) :)
Regards
R
--
Randall R. Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
815-342-5222 (cell) 815-477-2127 (work)
