On 6/17/2015 1:44 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > I think that this discussion with Joe maybe suffered from focusing on > TCP.
To be fair, TCP has a simpler abstract API. > SCTP is perhaps a better starting point because it supports > almost everything. IMO, that makes it very hard as a starting point, and I also think that TCP's variant of an API description is much better as an example. E.g., Section 10 of RFC4960 claims it defines an abstract API (ULP-to_SCTP), but it begins by describing a call to initialize a data structure (INITIALIZE). That's decidedly NOT an abstract API; it's a generic description of an implementation issue. IMO, if we don't understand the difference between the API in RFC793 vs. that in RFC4960 (and why 793 is a better example), then this is going to be a very bumpy road. Joe _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
