On 6/6/2016 1:17 AM, Michael Welzl wrote: >> On 27 Apr 2016, at 23:25, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > Not part of TAPS I think, because it's not related to automatizing the use of > protocols other than TCP or UDP.
Please explain why you think that's true. AFAICT, it's fundamental to how any protocol interacts with the OS. Joe _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
