On 6/3/2015 10:45 PM, Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> In my presentation in Dallas I had suggested adding RTP (and even
> HTTP) because as both Mirja and Christian mention some 'applications'
> are requesting functionalities that are got given elsewhere.
The core of this issue is "what is a transport protocol".
To the user, "transport" is the entire stack between their program and
the network (IP) layer - sometimes even including that (e.g., IPsec).
To typical transport protocols (e.g., UDP, TCP), everything that
accesses a transport protocol is the "application" layer.
>From the document:
Transport Service: a set of transport service features, without an
association to any given framing protocol, which provides a
complete service to an application.
Transport Protocol: an implementation that provides one or more
different transport services using a specific framing and header
format on the wire.
By those definitions, EVERYTHING between the user program and the link
layer is arguably part of the services an app sees, which include "shim"
services and layers such as: IPsec, TLS, and RTP.
I would argue that HTTP is the application that uses TCP (or TLS/TCP),
but not a separate service, but that's true only for conventional web
service.
There are many services built on top of HTTP, at which point HTTP is
just another part of what this document calls a "transport service".
As a result, unless you'll be describing every possible stack between
the user program and the link layer, this document cannot proceed with
the current definitions.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
