On 4/27/2016 1:16 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: > Thinking about Toerless' general point of using more modern APIs made > me think of the bigger picture again. For example, one cool recent > feature in TCP APIs is the SO_SNDLOWAT socket option, which allows > better control of the sender buffer. Not including it in an API > document "sucks" and it IS nice to include it in a description of an > API.
This is an interesting example. It affects how a user-level process interacts with the protocol implementation inside the OS but has NOTHING to do with TCP. I'm not sure where I would put that. It clearly isn't part of the TCP API. Nor, e.g., would be the "nice" level of the process that's feeding data to TCP -- yet both could affect performance between two applications. It seems like there's a gap here you could drive a truck through that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure where, though - i.e., whether this is part of TAPS or not. Joe _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
