Hi Olivier,
see below
On 06.03.2015 00:33, Olivier Mehani wrote:
Hi Mirja, all,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 12:23:21PM +0100, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
Sections 3.2 and 3.3 in draft-03 remind us that there are
commonalities between MPTCP (RFC6897) and SCTP APIs (RFC6458). They
could be further summarised, perhaps in a dedicated session to
“multi-path features”, abstracting what both protocols provide to
applications. It could be, for example, inside section 4 as
subsection.
thanks for this offer. The idea of this document is to first describe all
existing protocols separately and then based on these descriptions detect
common transport service features. And, this might be again a terminology
issues, this is not about the API that is exposed to the higher layer but
rather about the actual feature that are implemented below.
Having said this, I'd like to first see a complete section (3.2) on MPTCP
before we start to writing something on this in section 4. However, I'm sure
you could also help to provide some text in section 3.2...? That would be
great!
Yes, that was the plan. I think the API for both SCTP and MPTCP are
relevant in highlighting the underlying features of the protocol, even
though these APIs are not what needs to be described.
Yep. APIs should not be discussed in section 4. However, for the protocol
description in section 3, if you look at the other descriptions, there is also a
subsection on the (higher layer) interface. As you say there is often a strong
dependency therefore I think there is a purpose to describe the interface as
well (in section 3) to have a ground truth for discussion.
The synthesis in section 4 should come at a later stage, once 3.2 (and
perhaps a similar discussion in SCTP's section), have been written up.
Yes!
Mirja
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
