On 4. nov. 2014, at 14:14, Brian Trammell wrote:

> Greetings, all,
> 
> As promised, here's an initial suggestion for terminology in 
> draft-fairhurst-taps-transports, compatible with but elaborating on the 
> minimal terminology in the charter, which would we would propose applies to 
> all TAPS work derived from this document:
> 
> 
> Transport Service: 
> An end-to-end facility provided by the transport layer that impacts the 
> design, operation, or deployment of the application using it. Example 
> Transport Services include reliable delivery of data, ordered delivery of 
> data, confidentiality of data with respect to in-path devices, or latency 
> guarantees for data transport. 
> 
> 
> Transport Service Composition: 
> A set of Transport Services taken together to meet the requirements of an 
> application for a given end-to-end interaction. Note that some potential sets 
> of Transport Services  given transport service may preclude the simultaneous 
> use of other transport services for a given end-to-end interaction (e.g. 
> "reliable delivery" and "time-dependent expiry of unacknowledged messages" as 
> per SCTP-PR are mutually exclusive). An example of a Transport Service 
> Composition would be that provided by the BSD SOCK_STREAM socket type: 
> reliable, ordered, non-boundary-perserving, stream-oriented transport, with 
> limited out of band capability. 
> 
> 
> Transport Instance: 
> A Transport Instance is an arrangement of transport protocols, potentially 
> encapsulated, and configurations thereof that implement a Transport Service 
> Composition. A given Transport Service Composition may be implemented by 
> multiple Instances (e.g., SOCK_STREAM can be implemented atop TCP, SCTP, or 
> SCTP over UDP). 
> 
> 
> Application: 
> In this and subsequent documents, an Application is defined as an entity that 
> uses the transport layer to interact with a remote Application according to 
> some set of requirements which can be met by Transport Services.
> 
> 
> Here I'm pointedly leaving "transport protocol" undefined, mainly so as to 
> sidestep marginally productive conversations about how many transport 
> protools SCTP over DTLS over UDP is. The exact implementation of a Transport 
> Service Composition would appear to be a matter for our third deliverable 
> anyway. :)
> 
> It's not perfect but it's a start. Thoughts?

We can and will probably debate this to death, but before that happens I'll 
say: I think this is a very good starting point, thanks!

Cheers,
Michael

_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Reply via email to