> On 5. nov. 2015, at 00.02, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI, > >> >> I believe that was just a misunderstanding: Karen thought that I had > only >> used RFC793 when writing draft-welzl-taps-transports-00, but really I > did try >> to use all relevant RFCs. >> > [Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen] ......well, I did observe that you were > referring to rfc1122 (and also RFC6093). > but the result and the emphasis on the PUSH bit made me think that weight > only was put on what was written in RFC 793. ;-) > > BTW, something which I didn't mention yesterday, but now got the "energy" > to in and find is the following: > > Send: This sends a message of a certain length in bytes over an > association. A number can be provided to later refer to the > correct message when reporting an error and a stream id is > provided to specify the stream to be used inside an association > (we consider this as a mandatory parameter here for simplicity: if > not provided, the stream id defaults to 0). An optional maximum > life time can specify the time after which the message should be > discarded rather than sent. A choice (advisory, i.e. not > guaranteed) of the preferred path can be made by providing a > destination transport address, and the message can be delivered > out-of-order if the unordered flag is set. Another advisory flag > indicates the ULP's preference to avoid bundling user data with > other outbound DATA chunks (i.e., in the same packet). The > > ^^^^ > handling of this no-bundle flags is similar to the sender side > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > handling of the TCP PUSH flag. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > A payload protocol-id can be > provided to pass a value that indicates the type of payload > protocol data to the peer. > > Can we agree to have this be removed also :-). > Bundling in SCTP is similar to Nagle. Indeed it is often implemented as > Nagle exactly > (though with add-ons). Comparing it to PUSH is NOT helpful.
Agreed. Actually I think that was not by intention, just a nit that happened as I wrote it: I don’t think I wanted to compare it with PUSH but indeed with Nagle. > Then, there is the additional discussion about RFC4960 and RFC6458 (socket > api) in that > bundling control is not often implemented as a flag on a message, but as > in TCP on a per association/connection level. > This again made me think emphasis was put on RFC793/RFC4960 and not much > else ;-). Things like “[not] often implemented” really shouldn’t be there. All mistakes, all to be fixed. Apologies! Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
