> On 19. des. 2014, at 20.05, Brian Trammell <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 18 Dec 2014, at 22:37, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for this update! >> >> A question: >> >>> We've posted a -01 rev of the TAPS transports document. We believe that the >>> format and level of detail for the TCP section is about what we're >>> targeting for each of the other sections, but this is still open to >>> discussion. >> >> Why is Nagle not a part of the protocol components and interface >> description? It’s mentioned in the protocol description above, and it’s >> something that an application decides. > > Simple omission. > > Should we make an attempt to give this (as a component) a generic name? > "Selectable sender side buffering"? Or can we just call it simply "Nagle"?
In http://heim.ifi.uio.no/michawe/research/publications/futurenet-icc2011.pdf we took SCTP's term for the same function because we found it more meaningful than "Nagle": Application PDU Bundling. I like that - it's also perhaps useful to folks to reuse terminology when we mean the exact same thing. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
