On Dec 3, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> wrote:
> just been quickly checking the transport service definition in RFC 2126. From > my understanding this is in line with the proposed definition of a transport > service (composition) (but not inline with the definition as given in the > charter). I still believe that we cannot only refer to RFC2126 though (but > probobly should refer RFC2116 somehow) because we really should define this > term in the set of the other terms to avoid confusion and provide a common > set of terms so we can actually talk to each other. Where does 1006 come in? 2126 updates 1006, and as near as I can tell the difference is in what gets left out - TP-2, TP-0, and a couple of other things. I believe that IEC documents refer primarily to 1006. 2126 defines an interface for TP-4. That would be SCTP’s message service. What is needed to make the transport definition also allow for an SCTP underpinning?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
