Somebody took Jonathan Rosenberg seriously when he said this in what
was it - was it Dublin or was it Philadelphia may be even Vancouver...
Some of the old hands might remember something called RDP which was
sort of lightweight TCP without the burdens of full blown tcp. As I
remember it, it provided acknowledgement of data delivery and tried to
minimize retransmissions. There were even two versions of it... Let
me look it up...
yep
rfc 908 and rfc 1151.... I remember thinking about it as UDP with
sequencing facility and retransmission!!!
Well TCP over UDP over TCP when you have to work with tunnels??? As
Terry Pratchett said in the Discworld series of books... "the world
stands on 8 elephants that stand on top of a giant turtle... what does
the turtle stand on... it is turtles all the way down"
Sorry about the tongue in cheek
So is ToU also going to have slow start in it??? and all other full
blown TCP'isms ??? why not just define a protocol that adds retransmit
of individual udp packets and ack mechanism and sequencing rather go
layer a whole stack on top of another stack... Just add the features
that are needed... Since you are proposing a new protocol anyway let
us keep it as minimalistic as possible
Sam
On Apr 9, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
Indeed, reusing all the current functions is the preferred approach.
However, an intermediate solution may be needed until the current
function calls don't support it.
Right. However I see this as being out of scope for this draft.
Applying
for a protocol number, though, might be in scope.
Thanks,
Simon
--
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
Interplanetary news --> http://reeves.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
