Sent from my iPhone
> On 3. apr. 2016, at 08.54, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > When someone talks about using TCP or SCTP then they are typically using > an API to the transport that hides a lot of details. My present draft is > only about the Datagram aspects of the API. For UDP applications, many > times you need require options or IP-level functions along with UDP. I'd > personally love to get helpful review inputs the ART area people > (applications/real-time) to figure this out. > > I was hoping we could put the text in the WG draft after we got this > input. But maybe, this can't happen soon... and we need a different plan? it sounds good to me; when i said premature i was thinking of my own doc, not this udp one > I'll maybe see you people today perhaps to decide how best to present > this? jfyi not me, not going to be at reception > > Gorry > >> >>> On 2. apr. 2016, at 16.49, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> Is all you/Gorry want to do is get a slide into the chair slide deck >>> that says "these drafts in TSV could use ART clue and attention", that >>> should be fine (but putting together a slide that says whatever you want >>> to ask is the key action). >>> >>> >>> To me the key question is whether it is premature. It might be useful >>> to get a few more protocols beyond TCP, SCTP, and UDP to better >>> illustrate the range of features. Interested in other opinions. >> >> As an author of the -usage document, this being premature is indeed also >> my concern. I’d feel more comfortable doing this with the next version, >> at the next IETF. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Taps mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps > _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
