> On 1. feb. 2015, at 08.51, [email protected] wrote: > >> Would it make sense to include statements about latency? >> > I think if we come to think about the API that could be presented by TAPS > to the application, we'll need to focus on what characteristics the Apps > expect from the network. Low latency is clearly one service that many apps > will desire.
Then again, we may decide to reserve this for doc #2? My thinking was that this should be the home of such generalization (which is one way to reduce the number of services exposed). >> We recently had a discussion with one of our suppliers about application >> layer timeouts that fired while the request was still stuck in the send >> queue. >> >> There were statements like 'UDP never queues' or 'we can't control the TCP >> send buffer size'. >> >> Maybe some general discussion of the interactions between application >> layer >> timers and transport layer retransmission strategies (like Nagle) would be >> useful. >> > I agree, some words on the Latency introduced by mechanisms would be good. If you go that way, here’s one of the drafts preceding the BOF, and written for the purpose of this group, as possible for input: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petlund-latency-transport-services-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petlund-latency-transport-services-00> Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
