Hi,
Thanks a lot for a good start. I notice that MPTCP is quoted as a transport protocol but that CMT-SCTP isn’t. I assume that this is motivated by the fact that the taps work very clearly draws the line in between features that have made it through IETF standardisation (even as informational) and features that have not and only are specified in “seemingly dormant” individual drafts. Correct ? In terms of SCTP and the transport service that it provides, then I wonder if the priority feature that it embeds is something that afford special mentioning in this document. I.e., by usage of streams and priority settings on streams then it is possible to enforce that messages written on particular stream is able to outrace messages written on other non-prioritized streams at least from a sender transmittal perspective. The feature is actually started to be deployed for some applications in present signalling networks but it is only partially standardized in that the tsvwg documents (ndata, secondary SCTP-pr) that specifies the feature are not finished yet. Still the features are described in standards track documents. Thanks BR, Karen *From:* Taps [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Falk *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:04 PM *To:* [email protected] *Cc:* Gorry Fairhurst; Brian Trammell *Subject:* [Taps] new draft available: draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-00 Hi Folks- Gorry & Brian have published an annotated framework for TAPS doc 1 on transport services here <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-taps-transports-00>. We'll discuss whether to adopt it as a working group doc in Honolulu. I encourage you to send comments and offers to contribute text before then. --aaron
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
