Hi Mirja, >>> >>> 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! > [Karen ] Do you here refer to SCTP MH or CMT SCTP ?
MPTCP include concurrency aspects which, for SCTP, only significantly arise with CMT SCTP. It has previously been stated that CMT SCTP would not be in scope of taps. Is that still the assumption ? BR, Karen >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 _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
