On 3/22/2015 7:34 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Major: > - I do think that the terminology actually needs to clarify about > what a "service" is. Following the chain of dependencies here, it is found in > "Transport Service", where it says "... which provides a complete > service to an application." > > The reason I think we need to define this is that we should (IMO) > explicitly exclude protocol functions that can improve the performance > of the protocol *only* depending on environment characteristics but > *irrespective* of the application. For example, things like ECN, SACK > etc. shouldn't be regarded as a "service" in my opinion.
IMO, a "service" is a coherent whole. ECN, SACK, etc. are capabilities within a service. The difference is simple: a service is the smallest set of capabilities that can be used independent of all others. Joe _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
