> On 23. mar. 2015, at 11.34, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
I completely agree and apologize, that was slopping writing on my side: I should have said "service component". Anyway my point was that ECN, SACK etc. shouldn't be any of that. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
