HI,
>-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Welzl [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:23 PM >To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen >Cc: [email protected]; Stein Gjessing >Subject: Re: [Taps] Comments on draft-gjessing-taps-minset-00.txt > >Hi, thanks! > >Below: > > >> On 16 Jul 2015, at 11:22, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen ><[email protected]> wrote: >> >> HI, >> >> A few initial comments the definition of the transport service >> features as they appear from section 3 (and TAPS1): >> >> Unidirectional/bidirectional: I am not sure what this means exactly: >> Does it refer to that data transfer is negotiated for both directions >> perhaps ? But then it only applies to connection oriented transport. >> Does it refer to that control info is going back ? >> Does it refer to that messages (which ever form) are going back on the >> reverse network path ? Then it does not necessarily apply to SCTP MH. > >Sorry for not being clear enough: it means that it's a feature that can be >used >just on one side, without requiring the other side to be involved (e.g. >Nagle is >just a sender-side mechanism). > [Karen ] Thanks. very precise. So we should call this single-sided or alike. Not something that seems to have a direction or be related to how data flows. > >> o non-reliable delivery: >> add SCTP >> >> o reliable delivery: >> add SCTP >> >> Suggest to rephrase >> >> o reliable and partially reliable delivery >> --> >> o partially reliable delivery: >> SCTP >> >> o drop notification : >> add SCTP >> >> o ordered delivery: >> add SCTP >> >> o unordered delivery: >> add SCTP > >ACK, thanks > > >> Ideally, I think, then one would use a common term for Nagle(-like) >> bundling for TCP and SCTP. > >Agreed, we actually did that in Michael Welzl, Stefan Jörer, Stein >Gjessing: >"Towards a Protocol-Independent Internet Transport API", FutureNet IV >workshop in conjunction with of IEEE ICC 2011, 5-9 June 2011, Kyoto, Japan, >using app PDU bundling because it's more meaningful than Nagle. > [Karen ] Great. >But here the idea was just to copy+paste the list from doc 1 (version 4) >and >put things under the correct headings, as a way to show how we *could* >apply categorization methods. > [Karen ] Yes I understand that. But the write-up serves very well to help unify and clarify the terms - which I suppose is the goal :-). BR, Karen >Cheers, >Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
