Hi Linda, The key goal of the draft is to do a requirements analysis on the transport services needed for low-latency and real-time applications. The proposed abstract API is the minimal API to achieve this. The new API features, compared to the Sockets API, are those in Sections 3.4-3.6.
We have an experimental implementation of an API much like this, written as part of our TCP Hollywood work (https://csperkins.org/research/tcp-hollywood/). This is a research prototype, so there are no deployed applications using it. If you’re interested in the API work, the proposal in draft-trammell-post-sockets-00 is a more interesting, and radical, approach, and should also meet the requirements we outline. Colin > On 11 Nov 2016, at 10:01, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Authors, > > Your draft listed down several APIs. But which one is used by Applications > that need low latency? > > Aren’t the “Socket Setup & Tear down” described in Section 3.1 the original > Berkley sockets APIs? If not, what are the differences? > > How about the “getsocketopt” and “Setsockopt”? and the APIs listed in > Section 3.3.? > > Which APIs are used by Applications that need low Latency? > > Are there any Applications today using the APIs proposed in > draft-mcquistin-taps-low-latency-services? > > Thank you very much, > > Linda Dunbar -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/ _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
